Councillors approve community stadium and shops plan at Monks Cross after mammoth meeting

York Press: An artist’s impression of the proposed new community stadium plans An artist’s impression of the proposed new community stadium plans

YORK should have a new John Lewis store within 18 months and a new stadium within three years, after councillors backed one of the city's biggest ever developments.

Proposals by developer Oakgate to build a new community stadium, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer at Monks Cross won planning permission tonight, after a marathon debate lasting more than eight hours.

Councillors approved the plan by 11 votes to four, after one of the longest and most well-attended meetings in City of York Council history.

Supporters of the development spoke of their delight afterwards, but opponents said an appeal had not been ruled out.

Richard France, spokesman for Oakgate, said the John Lewis store should open in autumn next year, the Marks & Spencer store the following spring, and the stadium in season 2014/15.

He said: “It is a vote in favour of jobs, growth and a legacy for professional, amateur and community sport.”

Coun James Alexander, City of York Council leader, said after the meeting: “York has shown itself to be open for business and today we have secured a future for professional sport in this city.”

He said an announcement was likely soon on more investment for the city-centre, particularly around the market.

Tim Atkins, the council's stadium project manager, said: "It's been a long time coming, but I am very happy. It is the right decision."

He said the council must now wait to see whether Communities Secretary Eric Pickles would “call in” the application for review.

Sophie Hicks, York City FC’s community and communications director, said: “It is a historic day in the club’s history.”

She praised the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors, all of whom voted yes, but criticised York Conservative leader Ian Gillies, who she said had led his party’s three planning committee members to vote no.

She said club manager Gary Mills was delighted with the decision, and now wanted to complete an excellent week for City by winning promotion back to the Football League at Wembley on Sunday, following the FA Trophy success at the same venue last Saturday.

Club chairman Jason McGill said: “We said when we came in that we wanted to secure a new stadium and to win promotion and now, what a wonderful eight days in the history of the club this could be.”

John Guildford, of York City Knights Rugby League Club, who will share the stadium with the football club, said: “It’s a great result and critical for the club. There is no plan B.”

Andrew Mills, development manager for John Lewis, said: “We are very pleased. It’s great we can bring investment to York.”

Neil Hunter, of City of York Athletics Club, said the decision safeguarded the future of athletics in York in time for the Olympics.

There was loud applause when the yes vote was announced, but critics said the matter may not be over and city-centre traders were “considering their position”.

Green councillor Dave Taylor said the planning committee had “chucked out of the window” every planning policy it had had for years, and he said he said it was almost inevitable that someone would appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider the proposals.

Adam Sinclair, of Mulberry Hall, said: “We have won the planning argument, the economic argument, the environmental argument and the sustainability argument. It is clear there is going to be severe and permanent economic damage and councillors have chosen to proceed, notwithstanding that.”

An independent report by Drivers Jonas Deloitte had said the development would cost the city centre £50 million a year but some councillors said the negatives of the development had been exaggerated.

A change in business rates announced by the Government yesterday means the city council will be able to keep half of the rates raised by the new development, expected to be around £3.5 million a year.

• Separate applications to expand the existing Monks Cross Shopping Park and to allow smaller units were rejected by the planning committee.

The applicant had said there was a danger some chains with branches in the park would not renew their leases unless there was more choice of shop size, but various committee members said they were unconvinced by the case put before them. Liberal Democrat councillor Ann Reid said the application seemed “too flexible”.

Local councillors Keith Hyman and Carol Runciman had raised concerns over the impact on traffic.

City divided during 8½ hour debate

DEBATE raged for more than eight hours as one of York’s biggest planning controversies in years finally came to a head.

More than 150 people packed into The Henley Suite of The Park Inn Hotel in North Street to debate three separate planning applications.

Two related to the existing Monks Cross Shopping Centre, where developers wanted to expand, creating some larger and some smaller stores. The third proposal by Oakgate was to build a new community stadium and two superstores, for John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, a third smaller store and community facilities.

The meeting of City of York Council’s planning committee had been moved from Guildhall to accommodate the large attendance, and brought forward from 4pm to 10am.

Sports fans, campaigners, reatailers, politicians, developers, conservationists and businessmen and women took part in a lengthy debate, delivering impassioned speeches for or against the proposals.

The biggest cheer was for Jason McGill, chairman of York City, who had brought the FA Trophy with him and put it on display. He said the club was just as culturally important as York’s theatres, galleries and museums. “This is an opportunity to have a 21st-century facility we can be proud of - a chance to raise the facilities to the level befitting of this city.”

Susie Cawood, of York Chamber of Commerce, said the debate was about York “showing the world it is a dynamic city – open for business, open for investment and open for economic growth. Two big retailers want to invest. How can we say no? How can we deny young people the opportunity to get off the unemployment register?”

But Adam Sinclair, of the York Chamber of Trade, spoke against the plans, saying: “If we get this wrong, the best national and international brands and investors will not come to York city centre or stay in York city centre. They will leave us behind. Please do not risk the future of this spirited city and please do not risk the future resilience of the people of York.”

Peter Brown, of York Civic Trust, claimed the proposal “cheapens York’s offer, undermines its integrity and makes a mockery of its aspirations to be a world heritage site”, while Phillip Crowe, of York Tomorrow, said he was unconvinced that all alternative funding options for a stadium had been considered.

Former council leader Steve Galloway said there was no alternative to the plan on the table.

He said: “York city centre is thriving and the addition of more retail at Monks Cross will not mean the end of the city centre but additional jobs and additional wages being spent in the city.”

But Nick Eggleton, of the Campaign For York, said: “If you approve these plans, the council will be blamed for every problem - for every shop that shuts and every job lost.”

Andrew Mills, of John Lewis, said Monks Cross was the company’s only opportunity to open in York. John Handy, of Marks & Spencer, said it was fully committed to York city centre and said Monks Cross would complement its existing offer.

How they voted and what they said:

Nigel Ayre, Lib Dem – Absent with apologies Paul Firth, Lib Dem – Yes – “Although we seem to be flying in the face of logic in some areas, it would be totally illogical to oppose this.”

Ann Reid, Lib Dem – Yes – “"I do think the claims being made around the city centre are a little bit exaggerated."

Andy D’Agorne, Green – No – “This runs completely counter to all our policies and strategies.”

Paul Healey, Con – Said Monks Cross was “hardly the most sustainable site" and said the benefits were being over-emphasised.

Joe Watt, Con – No – “Too many councillors have been seduced by big business.”

John Galvin, Con – No – “We are being asked to take a punt and to gamble on the future of York.”

Linsay Cunningham-Cross, Lab – Yes – Did not comment in the debate, as committee chair Tracey Simpson-Laing, Lab – Yes – “Overall, we have to look at this having benefits, not disadvantages.”

Dafydd Williams, Lab – Yes – “I think we would be mad to turn this down. The positive benefits outweigh the negatives.”

Barbara Boyce, Lab – Yes – “Retailing has to evolve.”

Stephen Burton, Lab – Yes – Said that “on balance” it was a good proposal worth supporting.

Ken King, Lab – Yes – “There has been a lot of scaremongering today, but scaremongering will not win the argument.”

Neil McIlveen, Lab – Yes – Supported the proposal, though did not speak in the debate.

Tina Funnell, Lab – Yes – “We have to think in terms of the whole city and people in my ward will benefit hugely from this.”

Brian Watson, Lab – Yes – Said there would be impact on the city centre but said Piccadilly was a “disgrace” as it was due to a lack of investment.

Comments (329)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:01pm Thu 17 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Campaign for Castleford - Your boys took a HELL of a beating.
Campaign for Castleford - Your boys took a HELL of a beating. The Great Buda

8:15pm Thu 17 May 12

YorkToff says...

Who cares!
Who cares! YorkToff

8:15pm Thu 17 May 12

lezyork1966 says...

finally its done, more out of town shopping with good parking, some new sports facilities and what about the city centre, do tell me ....
finally its done, more out of town shopping with good parking, some new sports facilities and what about the city centre, do tell me .... lezyork1966

8:18pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward. Even AndyD

8:19pm Thu 17 May 12

Prob says...

Yay
Yay Prob

8:20pm Thu 17 May 12

honestworker says...

this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town.

The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!!
this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town. The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!! honestworker

8:20pm Thu 17 May 12

Sarah York says...

Great outcome.

Thank you for voting the right way. The C4Y and certain others should be thoroughly ashamed but who cares if they're not. They lost, the city of York won.
Great outcome. Thank you for voting the right way. The C4Y and certain others should be thoroughly ashamed but who cares if they're not. They lost, the city of York won. Sarah York

8:22pm Thu 17 May 12

carterjason says...

Great result, this is a great move forward for York City fc and the development of monks x. Creating jobs, buisness,investment and progress.
Great result, this is a great move forward for York City fc and the development of monks x. Creating jobs, buisness,investment and progress. carterjason

8:23pm Thu 17 May 12

honestworker says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
yer just what we need.....

think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote]yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole honestworker

8:27pm Thu 17 May 12

Stupidyorkpeople says...

Wonderful news !!
Wonderful news !! Stupidyorkpeople

8:28pm Thu 17 May 12

Sarah York says...

Wow, York goes from having the 3rd least unemployed in the country to everyone being on the dole....because of two shops. Wow..just...wow.
Wow, York goes from having the 3rd least unemployed in the country to everyone being on the dole....because of two shops. Wow..just...wow. Sarah York

8:29pm Thu 17 May 12

Sarah York says...

Was meant to quote honestworker there obviously.
Was meant to quote honestworker there obviously. Sarah York

8:30pm Thu 17 May 12

BDN says...

Stop being so melodramatic.

York is one of the most beautiful cities in Britain/Europe/the world. It doesn't stop being that just because of a big John Lewis store nearby.

This will mean that talented people can stay in York and work (and spend money in the city centre) rather than having to leave to find work. The image of the City centre will change, of course it will, but the internet will contribute to that much more than anything else.

Stop acting like this is going to make the middle of York some kind of ghost town. The queues outside Betty's and the Viking centre will still be as long in 10 years time, the Minster will still be the best building I've seen in my entire life and the city centre will still be almost unbearably crowded on Summer Saturdays.

The only things that will change is that the selfish Adam Sinclair might have to recognise he isn't the dictator of York, and that the city as a whole might just keep up with modern society.
Stop being so melodramatic. York is one of the most beautiful cities in Britain/Europe/the world. It doesn't stop being that just because of a big John Lewis store nearby. This will mean that talented people can stay in York and work (and spend money in the city centre) rather than having to leave to find work. The image of the City centre will change, of course it will, but the internet will contribute to that much more than anything else. Stop acting like this is going to make the middle of York some kind of ghost town. The queues outside Betty's and the Viking centre will still be as long in 10 years time, the Minster will still be the best building I've seen in my entire life and the city centre will still be almost unbearably crowded on Summer Saturdays. The only things that will change is that the selfish Adam Sinclair might have to recognise he isn't the dictator of York, and that the city as a whole might just keep up with modern society. BDN

8:30pm Thu 17 May 12

honestworker says...

maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!!
maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!! honestworker

8:32pm Thu 17 May 12

Yorkie69 says...

I live in The Midlands but am from York originally. I still come back for football as do many "ex pats". We visit York and shop in York when we are there,a s do our other halves. With no football club ( which may have happened ) many people would have no reason to visit York. York relies very much on the tourist industry and people will be coming to York for many years. Improve the car parking and park and ride. M and S will still be in York. I agree with carterjason - jobs will be created and perhaps shoppers won`t be going to Leeds now !
I live in The Midlands but am from York originally. I still come back for football as do many "ex pats". We visit York and shop in York when we are there,a s do our other halves. With no football club ( which may have happened ) many people would have no reason to visit York. York relies very much on the tourist industry and people will be coming to York for many years. Improve the car parking and park and ride. M and S will still be in York. I agree with carterjason - jobs will be created and perhaps shoppers won`t be going to Leeds now ! Yorkie69

8:37pm Thu 17 May 12

BDN says...

honestworker wrote:
maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!!
Relax. Take a deep breath.

As was pointed out in the meeting I believe, if the shop you work for can't survive 2 competitors a few miles away, then your shop has a horrendous business plan...

Some businesses die out, some thrive. In the future some of the shops in York will have closed, some will be thriving and plenty of new ones will have sprung up. If your shop can't compete, it wouldn't have survived into the future whether this was built or not.

But I bet you're just getting over excited and actually sales in the shop you work in will barely change based on this?
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!![/p][/quote]Relax. Take a deep breath. As was pointed out in the meeting I believe, if the shop you work for can't survive 2 competitors a few miles away, then your shop has a horrendous business plan... Some businesses die out, some thrive. In the future some of the shops in York will have closed, some will be thriving and plenty of new ones will have sprung up. If your shop can't compete, it wouldn't have survived into the future whether this was built or not. But I bet you're just getting over excited and actually sales in the shop you work in will barely change based on this? BDN

8:38pm Thu 17 May 12

rawcliffeyorkieboy says...

The reason why small local businesses are quitting York is for one reason only and that is the high rent charges. I'm sick and tired of hearing that this development will kill the city centre. How could York turn down the opportunity of investment from two of the countries biggest retailers. Both willing to invest millions into York and provide us with jobs. Cmon Green party, your protest is a joke. Truth is you represent the minority of York and we found that out today.
The reason why small local businesses are quitting York is for one reason only and that is the high rent charges. I'm sick and tired of hearing that this development will kill the city centre. How could York turn down the opportunity of investment from two of the countries biggest retailers. Both willing to invest millions into York and provide us with jobs. Cmon Green party, your protest is a joke. Truth is you represent the minority of York and we found that out today. rawcliffeyorkieboy

8:39pm Thu 17 May 12

adrian12 says...

A great decision for a change by York Council, town will always survive with the tourisum that it naturally brings.But lets be honest the town center has to look at itself on promoting itself and making it free to park .
A great all round choice
A great decision for a change by York Council, town will always survive with the tourisum that it naturally brings.But lets be honest the town center has to look at itself on promoting itself and making it free to park . A great all round choice adrian12

8:42pm Thu 17 May 12

speaks99 says...

York City Centre is currently bucking the trend with low vacancy rates, above average footfall and a tourist trade which will not disappear.
Two new department stores will not change this.
York City Centre is currently bucking the trend with low vacancy rates, above average footfall and a tourist trade which will not disappear. Two new department stores will not change this. speaks99

8:42pm Thu 17 May 12

yorkonafork says...

honestworker wrote:
maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!!
I do work in Town. Trade isn't slow both visually or factually, read up on things, it may help your case.

York is wonderful, full of tourists in the holidays, shoppers, it's not remotely slow. Perhaps your shop is, perhaps your shop therefore is a bit rubbish and you should pull your finger out.

York's doing very well and is putting out some great figure which other cities aren't during these hard times. This is great news, a great addition and will bring in more money and more importantly jobs. Can't keep up with it then so be it. May sound harsh but I'm sick of some people looking around for an excuse why their business may be doing badly when the answer is right infront of you, in a mirror.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: maybe if you wokred in town and saw how slow trade is and how hard it is to get trade those simple '' small 2 shops'' might cause concern i mean really whos ever heard of these small shops that are opening im sure it wont be busy at all!![/p][/quote]I do work in Town. Trade isn't slow both visually or factually, read up on things, it may help your case. York is wonderful, full of tourists in the holidays, shoppers, it's not remotely slow. Perhaps your shop is, perhaps your shop therefore is a bit rubbish and you should pull your finger out. York's doing very well and is putting out some great figure which other cities aren't during these hard times. This is great news, a great addition and will bring in more money and more importantly jobs. Can't keep up with it then so be it. May sound harsh but I'm sick of some people looking around for an excuse why their business may be doing badly when the answer is right infront of you, in a mirror. yorkonafork

8:46pm Thu 17 May 12

bar_wench says...

The people are against the shops need to get over themselves...2 shops are not going to make any bloody difference to the city centre. City centre will have the tourists and the outer shopping areas will have the locals.

I have major issues with the stadium though I think it is a fantastic waste of money and I am terrified about what will happen to Bootham Cresent (it might not be a pretty sports venue but I love it)
The people are against the shops need to get over themselves...2 shops are not going to make any bloody difference to the city centre. City centre will have the tourists and the outer shopping areas will have the locals. I have major issues with the stadium though I think it is a fantastic waste of money and I am terrified about what will happen to Bootham Cresent (it might not be a pretty sports venue but I love it) bar_wench

8:49pm Thu 17 May 12

Even AndyD says...

honestworker wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
yer just what we need.....

think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole
I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot.

You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote]yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole[/p][/quote]I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot. You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city. Even AndyD

8:50pm Thu 17 May 12

honestworker says...

ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted.

but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus.
ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted. but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus. honestworker

8:52pm Thu 17 May 12

GuyWithCommonSense says...

I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...
I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character... GuyWithCommonSense

8:53pm Thu 17 May 12

GuyWithCommonSense says...

OR just build a mega expensive/fast underground train network between monks x, clifton moor and the designer outlet. Then everyone would be happy?
OR just build a mega expensive/fast underground train network between monks x, clifton moor and the designer outlet. Then everyone would be happy? GuyWithCommonSense

8:53pm Thu 17 May 12

honestworker says...

Even AndyD wrote:
honestworker wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
yer just what we need.....

think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole
I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot.

You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city.
that a fair response, it natural to be worried. there is always a CHANCE that this could back fire to york centre not every shop is tourist focused. lets hope your right!!!
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote]yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole[/p][/quote]I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot. You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city.[/p][/quote]that a fair response, it natural to be worried. there is always a CHANCE that this could back fire to york centre not every shop is tourist focused. lets hope your right!!! honestworker

8:54pm Thu 17 May 12

PositiveFootball says...

Excellent result! proving that big business and local communities can be mutually beneficial to each other. It's pleasing that the vote has gone against the concerns of a few greedy businessmen who only had a financial interest in campaigning for a no vote.
Excellent result! proving that big business and local communities can be mutually beneficial to each other. It's pleasing that the vote has gone against the concerns of a few greedy businessmen who only had a financial interest in campaigning for a no vote. PositiveFootball

8:56pm Thu 17 May 12

TerryYork says...

Great result for the people of York. Bad news for tourists who retired here hoping York was their gift shop playground.

Win win.
Great result for the people of York. Bad news for tourists who retired here hoping York was their gift shop playground. Win win. TerryYork

9:01pm Thu 17 May 12

MARTIND17 says...

Another nail in the Coffin of what was a wonderfull City .......... more GREEN land allowed to be developed - Car usage increased why ?..... Communities being destroyed - Just have a look around where they have allowed the University to expand onto GREEN land , the whole district is void of Families & communities -- Just Student lets - Who is really Benefitting / making money ?
Another nail in the Coffin of what was a wonderfull City .......... more GREEN land allowed to be developed - Car usage increased why ?..... Communities being destroyed - Just have a look around where they have allowed the University to expand onto GREEN land , the whole district is void of Families & communities -- Just Student lets - Who is really Benefitting / making money ? MARTIND17

9:07pm Thu 17 May 12

amike says...

Let's not forget that the plan to expand Monks Cross Shopping Centre was refused so Mr Alexander 'York has shown itself to be open for business and today' but only if it comes with a free sports stadium.

Let see in a few years time how many jobs are lost at Monks Cross and wether there is an overall gain!!
Let's not forget that the plan to expand Monks Cross Shopping Centre was refused so Mr Alexander 'York has shown itself to be open for business and today' but only if it comes with a free sports stadium. Let see in a few years time how many jobs are lost at Monks Cross and wether there is an overall gain!! amike

9:09pm Thu 17 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Even AndyD wrote:
honestworker wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
yer just what we need.....

think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole
I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot.

You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city.
Well done AndyD for showing Sinclair for what he is!
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote]yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole[/p][/quote]I've lived and worked in this city a long time. I heard these arguments before Clifton Moor, before Monks Cross and before the Designer Outlet. Now I'm expected to believe in this ghost town scenario because of two more stores? Sorry, but I cannot. You are entitled to your view and good luck with your own business. I just think there is room for us all, especially in the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK - population-wise. 23,000 more people since 2012 says we will all be fine. As does the bustling Coney St I saw in 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. York is a resilient and vibrant city - it will adapt, as it always has done. Meanwhile, those of us who live here and pay taxes deserve facilities befitting what it now a sizeable city.[/p][/quote]Well done AndyD for showing Sinclair for what he is! KAT1965

9:12pm Thu 17 May 12

long distance depressive says...

I have never nor will ever vote for a Labour Govt-however I have to applaud those councillors who for the development. I despair of the Tory group who appear to be following the Whip and say it would be a vote for big business!! I expect nothing less of the Greens, bunch of nonentities who should stick to their dream of trying to cover the land in inefficient wind turbines and wondering why their vote has vanished quicker than Mr Sinclairs credibility.
I have never nor will ever vote for a Labour Govt-however I have to applaud those councillors who for the development. I despair of the Tory group who appear to be following the Whip and say it would be a vote for big business!! I expect nothing less of the Greens, bunch of nonentities who should stick to their dream of trying to cover the land in inefficient wind turbines and wondering why their vote has vanished quicker than Mr Sinclairs credibility. long distance depressive

9:12pm Thu 17 May 12

Daley Mayall says...

They (C4Y) thought it was all over.....

....well it is for them now! Stuff your blinkered views and self-centred interests...

...This is a great decision for the city of York's natives, and YORK CITY FC & YORK CITY KNIGHTS.
They (C4Y) thought it was all over..... ....well it is for them now! Stuff your blinkered views and self-centred interests... ...This is a great decision for the city of York's natives, and YORK CITY FC & YORK CITY KNIGHTS. Daley Mayall

9:14pm Thu 17 May 12

OLD - HEAD says...

Mixed emotions - Delighted that the project has been passed. But it will still be a huge wrench when York City finally leave Bootham Crescent, but there was no other option on the table. New stores at Monks Cross wont turn the city centre into a ghost town. As long as we have a Minster, Bar Walls and Museums the tourists will still come to spend money in York. The city centre shops stopped catering for local people years ago.
Mixed emotions - Delighted that the project has been passed. But it will still be a huge wrench when York City finally leave Bootham Crescent, but there was no other option on the table. New stores at Monks Cross wont turn the city centre into a ghost town. As long as we have a Minster, Bar Walls and Museums the tourists will still come to spend money in York. The city centre shops stopped catering for local people years ago. OLD - HEAD

9:34pm Thu 17 May 12

Waspie says...

I think we should bulldoze the minster and build a primark to make the centre of York the retail experience it should be and as for Cliffords tower get rid of that as well feck all use it is . Bulldoze the soil for extra floodbanks and build extra car parking instead LOL

York centre is not like Leeds it has not been created for the motor car and does not suit large scale retail development as for destroying the city cente thats rubbish. I can see the new development attracting people back to shop at York rather than travelling elsewhere.
PS only kidding about our fantastic tourist attractions.
I think we should bulldoze the minster and build a primark to make the centre of York the retail experience it should be and as for Cliffords tower get rid of that as well feck all use it is . Bulldoze the soil for extra floodbanks and build extra car parking instead LOL York centre is not like Leeds it has not been created for the motor car and does not suit large scale retail development as for destroying the city cente thats rubbish. I can see the new development attracting people back to shop at York rather than travelling elsewhere. PS only kidding about our fantastic tourist attractions. Waspie

9:55pm Thu 17 May 12

Tug job says...

honestworker wrote:
Even AndyD wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole
BUt it won't go downhill, will it, people hardly come to York for the quality of its shops - they come for other reasons; many, many residents shop in Leeds, Manchester, Hull, Sheffield or Nwcastle because of the lack of choice in York City Centre, parking charges, traffic congestion and service that is, at best, disinterested and arrogant. Fantastic news for future generations of local residents. Thank you, City of York Council for making a brave decision - you know that, in your heart of hearts, you have taken the correct decision.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote]yer just what we need..... think about it if town goes downhill which it will... no one will be working..no money.... no shopping no community as we will all be on the dole[/p][/quote]BUt it won't go downhill, will it, people hardly come to York for the quality of its shops - they come for other reasons; many, many residents shop in Leeds, Manchester, Hull, Sheffield or Nwcastle because of the lack of choice in York City Centre, parking charges, traffic congestion and service that is, at best, disinterested and arrogant. Fantastic news for future generations of local residents. Thank you, City of York Council for making a brave decision - you know that, in your heart of hearts, you have taken the correct decision. Tug job

10:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brian says...

GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...
I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.
[quote][p][bold]GuyWithCommonSense[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...[/p][/quote]I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed. Dr Brian

10:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Some old bloke says...

Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large.
Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections.
Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large. Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections. Some old bloke

10:06pm Thu 17 May 12

amike says...

Dr Brian wrote:
GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...
I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.
I wonder why???????????
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GuyWithCommonSense[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...[/p][/quote]I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.[/p][/quote]I wonder why??????????? amike

10:08pm Thu 17 May 12

big boy york says...

OLD - HEAD wrote:
Mixed emotions - Delighted that the project has been passed. But it will still be a huge wrench when York City finally leave Bootham Crescent, but there was no other option on the table. New stores at Monks Cross wont turn the city centre into a ghost town. As long as we have a Minster, Bar Walls and Museums the tourists will still come to spend money in York. The city centre shops stopped catering for local people years ago.
agree with you old-head, will be a sad day when we play our last match at BC, what i worry about now is what will happen if pickles calls it in & over rules the council as cyc have gone against every government ruling on planning
[quote][p][bold]OLD - HEAD[/bold] wrote: Mixed emotions - Delighted that the project has been passed. But it will still be a huge wrench when York City finally leave Bootham Crescent, but there was no other option on the table. New stores at Monks Cross wont turn the city centre into a ghost town. As long as we have a Minster, Bar Walls and Museums the tourists will still come to spend money in York. The city centre shops stopped catering for local people years ago.[/p][/quote]agree with you old-head, will be a sad day when we play our last match at BC, what i worry about now is what will happen if pickles calls it in & over rules the council as cyc have gone against every government ruling on planning big boy york

10:09pm Thu 17 May 12

HorsesHead says...

Agree the "pitch" of the city centre will change but let's face it for locals car parking charges are astronomical - who wants to walk miles carrying heavy shopping bags. York is an ancient city and not suited to the large department stores that we all crave for. And if you work in the city it costs a fortune in parking. Hopefully both Monks Cross and the city centre will win (as well as the football club on Sunday). Shoppers will get what they want, the city centre will gain character by having more bespoke shops, and tourists will love it as it well as they will have more time and space. Can only reiterate what a previous poster said about Betty's. They could open a third outlet somewhere. Just hope landlords of the city centre shops see sense.
Agree the "pitch" of the city centre will change but let's face it for locals car parking charges are astronomical - who wants to walk miles carrying heavy shopping bags. York is an ancient city and not suited to the large department stores that we all crave for. And if you work in the city it costs a fortune in parking. Hopefully both Monks Cross and the city centre will win (as well as the football club on Sunday). Shoppers will get what they want, the city centre will gain character by having more bespoke shops, and tourists will love it as it well as they will have more time and space. Can only reiterate what a previous poster said about Betty's. They could open a third outlet somewhere. Just hope landlords of the city centre shops see sense. HorsesHead

10:23pm Thu 17 May 12

DQ Sussex says...

The city will continue to strive With the tourism. Ycfc need a new stadium and the public will shop where they want to. I recently bought my iPad on John Lewis.com. Next year I can go to the store!
The city will continue to strive With the tourism. Ycfc need a new stadium and the public will shop where they want to. I recently bought my iPad on John Lewis.com. Next year I can go to the store! DQ Sussex

10:23pm Thu 17 May 12

rogue84 says...

Sinclair still arguing the toss afterwards, dear oh dear. one rule for you and another for everyone else. almost like Betty's complaining yet having a 2nd cafe in Harrogate! doesn't Sinclair have a store at the Designer Outlet as well???
also seen that a cheese knife costs £33 pounds there, that could possibly be the reason why business struggles!

great news for not only York City, the Knights and York Athletics, but also to the youngsters of the city, now and in the future.
We will have an excellent facility to be used for all kinds of sporting events and this will also safeguard some of the youth policies at all of the 3 clubs mentioned.
York are fortunate that we are a tourism centre - we've been saying this now for months. Tourists will NEVER stop visiting York, it's not like somewhere like Cas or Brid etc. This is a city that thrives on visitors that only ever travel within the city walls most of the time they are here.

congratulations to all who got this approved, perhaps the city centre stores should ask the council to lower the parking charges, may encourage york's residents to actually go into their own city!
Sinclair still arguing the toss afterwards, dear oh dear. one rule for you and another for everyone else. almost like Betty's complaining yet having a 2nd cafe in Harrogate! doesn't Sinclair have a store at the Designer Outlet as well??? also seen that a cheese knife costs £33 pounds there, that could possibly be the reason why business struggles! great news for not only York City, the Knights and York Athletics, but also to the youngsters of the city, now and in the future. We will have an excellent facility to be used for all kinds of sporting events and this will also safeguard some of the youth policies at all of the 3 clubs mentioned. York are fortunate that we are a tourism centre - we've been saying this now for months. Tourists will NEVER stop visiting York, it's not like somewhere like Cas or Brid etc. This is a city that thrives on visitors that only ever travel within the city walls most of the time they are here. congratulations to all who got this approved, perhaps the city centre stores should ask the council to lower the parking charges, may encourage york's residents to actually go into their own city! rogue84

10:27pm Thu 17 May 12

MARTIND17 says...

low paid jobs ?
retailing the future ?
No manufacturing encouraged ?
green land built on
the true residents of York cant afford to live here anymore
lets face it the City is getting ripped off by the few
low paid jobs ? retailing the future ? No manufacturing encouraged ? green land built on the true residents of York cant afford to live here anymore lets face it the City is getting ripped off by the few MARTIND17

10:28pm Thu 17 May 12

bolero says...

So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny.
So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny. bolero

10:46pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

bolero wrote:
So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny.
Sorry, who has been bought here ? Not the Conservatives !
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny.[/p][/quote]Sorry, who has been bought here ? Not the Conservatives ! Mr Crabtree

10:47pm Thu 17 May 12

DQ Sussex says...

This must be the way forward for all concerned. The theatre gets huge subsidies but the football club(an entertainment industry) gets nothing. Now I really think ycfc can complete a treble. 2 cups and a new ground. COME ON YOU REDS!
This must be the way forward for all concerned. The theatre gets huge subsidies but the football club(an entertainment industry) gets nothing. Now I really think ycfc can complete a treble. 2 cups and a new ground. COME ON YOU REDS! DQ Sussex

10:48pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Labour Council sends out a clear message....

FOR SALE:
Planning Permissions;
All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted.
Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules.

CoYC
The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC Mr Crabtree

10:54pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

amike wrote:
Dr Brian wrote:
GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...
I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.
I wonder why???????????
Cos they didn't bribe the Council ? !!!!
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GuyWithCommonSense[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...[/p][/quote]I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.[/p][/quote]I wonder why???????????[/p][/quote]Cos they didn't bribe the Council ? !!!! Mr Crabtree

11:01pm Thu 17 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
.....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote].....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!! Mr Crabtree

11:12pm Thu 17 May 12

MARTIND17 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
does seem that way
how did the university get permission to expand like that etc
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]does seem that way how did the university get permission to expand like that etc MARTIND17

11:12pm Thu 17 May 12

malvern wolf says...

York will always have a great city centre, people from all over the world come to see it's charms, for me the greatest city in the UK.
York will always have a great city centre, people from all over the world come to see it's charms, for me the greatest city in the UK. malvern wolf

11:14pm Thu 17 May 12

Wiggles says...

honestworker wrote:
ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted.

but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus.
Perhaps the reason that trade is slow has nothing to do with a proposed development but down to the fact that people have less money to spend in the current economic climate. I for one am prepared to trawl the internet for a better deal on goods that I want to buy. As you have already stated business is slower in comparison to 3 or 4 years ago so you can hardly blame this on a development that hasn't even been built yet!!!!
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted. but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the reason that trade is slow has nothing to do with a proposed development but down to the fact that people have less money to spend in the current economic climate. I for one am prepared to trawl the internet for a better deal on goods that I want to buy. As you have already stated business is slower in comparison to 3 or 4 years ago so you can hardly blame this on a development that hasn't even been built yet!!!! Wiggles

11:29pm Thu 17 May 12

Wrangle says...

YorkToff wrote:
Who cares!
"Councillors approved the plan by 11 votes to four, after one of the longest and most well-attended meetings in City of York Council history."

Quite a lot of people it would seem.
[quote][p][bold]YorkToff[/bold] wrote: Who cares![/p][/quote]"Councillors approved the plan by 11 votes to four, after one of the longest and most well-attended meetings in City of York Council history." Quite a lot of people it would seem. Wrangle

11:40pm Thu 17 May 12

steven45 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
.....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!!
12 hours posting now. I thought you said it was of no consequence to you? I respect your right to disagree, but why can't you accept that most York residents want and deserve something for their benefit?
The centre of York will never die. It's lasted for hundreds of years and 2 shops won't do it. If businesses can't respond to competition then they don't deserve to survive.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't get my earlier similar post deleted?
PS- went to Barnitts today for a wallpaper stripper. One model for sale and 25% dearer than B&Q. I went to B&Q instead , but still had a
coffee in town! See, the city can support both out of town retail and city centre!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote].....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!![/p][/quote]12 hours posting now. I thought you said it was of no consequence to you? I respect your right to disagree, but why can't you accept that most York residents want and deserve something for their benefit? The centre of York will never die. It's lasted for hundreds of years and 2 shops won't do it. If businesses can't respond to competition then they don't deserve to survive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't get my earlier similar post deleted? PS- went to Barnitts today for a wallpaper stripper. One model for sale and 25% dearer than B&Q. I went to B&Q instead , but still had a coffee in town! See, the city can support both out of town retail and city centre! steven45

11:45pm Thu 17 May 12

pedalling paul says...

I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....! pedalling paul

11:51pm Thu 17 May 12

Shetland Yorkie says...

As an exile living in Shetland I've been following this debate online for some time now. As is often the case the debate can become a bit polarised and a bit too personal for my liking, but I guess that's just how it is these days, and there is an inability of some people to take defeat with good grace. To those of you who objected to this scheme, for whatever reason, selfish or otherwise, you've lost. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, it's called democracy, and at last it's good to see the silent majority's wishes upheld by their elected members. In its essence it's about choice and value, and turning down investment of this scale in the current climate would be an absolute scandal.

And to all the City fans out there, speak to your mates down the pub, at work, at the school gates, wherever you can. We need to take an army down to Wembley to cheer on our team to complete probably the greatest week in our proud clubs history. They'll never kill York City.
As an exile living in Shetland I've been following this debate online for some time now. As is often the case the debate can become a bit polarised and a bit too personal for my liking, but I guess that's just how it is these days, and there is an inability of some people to take defeat with good grace. To those of you who objected to this scheme, for whatever reason, selfish or otherwise, you've lost. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, it's called democracy, and at last it's good to see the silent majority's wishes upheld by their elected members. In its essence it's about choice and value, and turning down investment of this scale in the current climate would be an absolute scandal. And to all the City fans out there, speak to your mates down the pub, at work, at the school gates, wherever you can. We need to take an army down to Wembley to cheer on our team to complete probably the greatest week in our proud clubs history. They'll never kill York City. Shetland Yorkie

11:56pm Thu 17 May 12

steven45 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
I agree but York isn't a typical city. We need development and investment but York doesn't have many other options. Coppergate (like that will ever happen), city wide tram/bus link (far too expensive), dualling the ring road with multiple park and rides (can't see it), York Central (dead as a dodo).
Why not take the development that's being offered and keep pushing for better transport solutions?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....![/p][/quote]I agree but York isn't a typical city. We need development and investment but York doesn't have many other options. Coppergate (like that will ever happen), city wide tram/bus link (far too expensive), dualling the ring road with multiple park and rides (can't see it), York Central (dead as a dodo). Why not take the development that's being offered and keep pushing for better transport solutions? steven45

12:06am Fri 18 May 12

Rosieposie says...

Get a grip. I live 2 miles from the centre of York near the park and ride and yet I have not been in to town for about 6 weeks. Why is that....well I like Monks Cross, begrudge the dreadful cost of York parking and in these straightened times it is easier and cheaper to shop out of town.
Build up York for the tourists there is the mArket for it.
Get a grip. I live 2 miles from the centre of York near the park and ride and yet I have not been in to town for about 6 weeks. Why is that....well I like Monks Cross, begrudge the dreadful cost of York parking and in these straightened times it is easier and cheaper to shop out of town. Build up York for the tourists there is the mArket for it. Rosieposie

12:12am Fri 18 May 12

Tug job says...

bolero wrote:
So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny.
Wasn't Douglas Craig influential in York Conservative Association (along with Michael Sinclair) for many years? Can anyone else sniff the aroma of hypocrisy?
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: So commonsense prevails. And now we know where the tory loyalties lie don't we? Money, money, money, it's so funny.[/p][/quote]Wasn't Douglas Craig influential in York Conservative Association (along with Michael Sinclair) for many years? Can anyone else sniff the aroma of hypocrisy? Tug job

1:25am Fri 18 May 12

Malcolm says...

A boost for the economy of neighbourhoods north and east of the river, outside the city centre. York is more than the area within the walls.
A boost for the economy of neighbourhoods north and east of the river, outside the city centre. York is more than the area within the walls. Malcolm

1:45am Fri 18 May 12

openallhours says...

TerryYork wrote:
Great result for the people of York. Bad news for tourists who retired here hoping York was their gift shop playground.

Win win.
Great result how? And by the way, York would be a hell of a lot worse without the tourist industry you're so quick to insult. Look at what York has lost down the years; Carriage Works, British Sugar, Terry's, Cravens, Ben Johnsons, Armstrong's etc etc... Plus all of the big employers reducing their work forces (Rowntrees/Nestle, The Press, Norwich Union to name but a few).

A couple of new shops to cater for the pseudo middle classes makes things ok again... Don't think so.

As for the stadium side of things, we have a poor rugby club and a conference football team (whom I've supported since childhood and spend £££'s every year to watch) but I would argue that York has far bigger priorities to deal with first.

The City is being run into the ground by poor politicians and greedy landlords whilst people like you encourage them to do so.

Wake up and smell the coffee pal!
[quote][p][bold]TerryYork[/bold] wrote: Great result for the people of York. Bad news for tourists who retired here hoping York was their gift shop playground. Win win.[/p][/quote]Great result how? And by the way, York would be a hell of a lot worse without the tourist industry you're so quick to insult. Look at what York has lost down the years; Carriage Works, British Sugar, Terry's, Cravens, Ben Johnsons, Armstrong's etc etc... Plus all of the big employers reducing their work forces (Rowntrees/Nestle, The Press, Norwich Union to name but a few). A couple of new shops to cater for the pseudo middle classes makes things ok again... Don't think so. As for the stadium side of things, we have a poor rugby club and a conference football team (whom I've supported since childhood and spend £££'s every year to watch) but I would argue that York has far bigger priorities to deal with first. The City is being run into the ground by poor politicians and greedy landlords whilst people like you encourage them to do so. Wake up and smell the coffee pal! openallhours

1:57am Fri 18 May 12

openallhours says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
Very fair point. The cost of living has never been higher, motoring costs increase year on year and we'll have a sports stadium situated out of town. Hang on a minute...
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....![/p][/quote]Very fair point. The cost of living has never been higher, motoring costs increase year on year and we'll have a sports stadium situated out of town. Hang on a minute... openallhours

2:48am Fri 18 May 12

joeslife says...

RIP York City Center then... Good job Labour, you've officially sounded the death knoll for city centre business. Glad to know you've got our best interests at heart!!! (idiots!)
RIP York City Center then... Good job Labour, you've officially sounded the death knoll for city centre business. Glad to know you've got our best interests at heart!!! (idiots!) joeslife

4:17am Fri 18 May 12

Magicman! says...

Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!!
Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!! Magicman!

7:10am Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
Buses?

But even accepting the car thing - ownership is still on the increase and you have to cater for that - not some fairyland, cycling pipe-dream that isn't happening.

And how does one buy bulky goods in town? Queue into the centre, creating more emissions and fumes near where people live and work. Then what - lug your surround sound TV back to your car half a mile away?

I respect your views and passions Paul, but you cannot shoe-horn them into every argument. Fuel prices? It costs me about £1 to drive to MX and back - its £2.40 on the bus. Long way to go yet with that argument.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....![/p][/quote]Buses? But even accepting the car thing - ownership is still on the increase and you have to cater for that - not some fairyland, cycling pipe-dream that isn't happening. And how does one buy bulky goods in town? Queue into the centre, creating more emissions and fumes near where people live and work. Then what - lug your surround sound TV back to your car half a mile away? I respect your views and passions Paul, but you cannot shoe-horn them into every argument. Fuel prices? It costs me about £1 to drive to MX and back - its £2.40 on the bus. Long way to go yet with that argument. Even AndyD

7:14am Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
I'll be going to see York City at the new stadium by bicycle Paul as will many others. Or by bus. Use your imagination.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....![/p][/quote]I'll be going to see York City at the new stadium by bicycle Paul as will many others. Or by bus. Use your imagination. swh1963

7:16am Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

joeslife wrote:
RIP York City Center then... Good job Labour, you've officially sounded the death knoll for city centre business. Glad to know you've got our best interests at heart!!! (idiots!)
People said this before the other three out of town retail outlets. Didn't happen then, don't see why two more (albeit large) stores will do it now.
Official reports say York centre is thriving and bucking the national trend. We are tourist driven, the town centre will never die whilst we have the minster, walls etc.
Finally, we are the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK, 23,000 more people since 2002. C4Y would like to keep those extra customers for themselves, I'd say its not fair and in any case, the centre alone could not cope with the extra volumes, parking etc.
An emotional response is understandable, Joe, but I don't think the facts support your doom laden scenario.
[quote][p][bold]joeslife[/bold] wrote: RIP York City Center then... Good job Labour, you've officially sounded the death knoll for city centre business. Glad to know you've got our best interests at heart!!! (idiots!)[/p][/quote]People said this before the other three out of town retail outlets. Didn't happen then, don't see why two more (albeit large) stores will do it now. Official reports say York centre is thriving and bucking the national trend. We are tourist driven, the town centre will never die whilst we have the minster, walls etc. Finally, we are the 2nd fastest growing city in the UK, 23,000 more people since 2002. C4Y would like to keep those extra customers for themselves, I'd say its not fair and in any case, the centre alone could not cope with the extra volumes, parking etc. An emotional response is understandable, Joe, but I don't think the facts support your doom laden scenario. Even AndyD

7:28am Fri 18 May 12

Thisisme says...

Magicman! wrote:
Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!!
And.....the conservatives will be there at Wembley on Sunday on a freebie!
Cllr Gillies has clearly whipped his party in to the no brigade......and he claims to be a City supporter?!
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!![/p][/quote]And.....the conservatives will be there at Wembley on Sunday on a freebie! Cllr Gillies has clearly whipped his party in to the no brigade......and he claims to be a City supporter?! Thisisme

7:35am Fri 18 May 12

again says...

Wrangle wrote:
YorkToff wrote:
Who cares!
"Councillors approved the plan by 11 votes to four, after one of the longest and most well-attended meetings in City of York Council history."

Quite a lot of people it would seem.
And that suggests Democracy was at work. Rather than just Money.

The city centre should now aim for the quality tourism market (not the tacky, D1sney stuff). York has a global reputation, not for its shops but its place in the history of England. If a town like York can't be successful, nowhere can.
[quote][p][bold]Wrangle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkToff[/bold] wrote: Who cares![/p][/quote]"Councillors approved the plan by 11 votes to four, after one of the longest and most well-attended meetings in City of York Council history." Quite a lot of people it would seem.[/p][/quote]And that suggests Democracy was at work. Rather than just Money. The city centre should now aim for the quality tourism market (not the tacky, D1sney stuff). York has a global reputation, not for its shops but its place in the history of England. If a town like York can't be successful, nowhere can. again

7:45am Fri 18 May 12

johnabostock says...

honestworker wrote:
ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted.

but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus.
How can you blame two new shops + stadium at MX continually for the way the city centre shops are failing, if that is the case. Every time I walk through York, it is always busy. Yes, parking is expensive but the policy of many cities is to drive the car out of city centres and give pedestrians the chance to walk through the city shopping without getting knocked down. Car drivers do have the Park & Ride facilities if they want to go into the city centre, so if trade is suffering maybe the traders` goods prices are too high compared with out-of-town shops. Also, it is a known fact that internet shopping is having a devastating effect on city centre shops though that might change with postal increases. I`m over the moon, after supporting YCFC for about 51 years, that at last a new stadium is being built guaranteeing the Club`s future after 8 years of being messed about by Council, traders and the one who set all of this off.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: ah very funny odd the shop i work in ( dont own) has been on the go for 50 years+. visually not slow eh? odd how the streets are dead in comparison to 3-4 years ago. and this is not just the street i work we deal with a huge amount of businesses around york supplying them with many goods and guess what they ALL say trade is slow and very hard etc. so mayeb you should look further than your mirror because town is SLOW it has naff all parking the parking it has is expensive these issues needed sorting years ago but nothing has been sorted. but maybe just the huge range of people we deal with all have rubbish business plans and all have no idea to run them after been fine for 20-30-40-50 years plus.[/p][/quote]How can you blame two new shops + stadium at MX continually for the way the city centre shops are failing, if that is the case. Every time I walk through York, it is always busy. Yes, parking is expensive but the policy of many cities is to drive the car out of city centres and give pedestrians the chance to walk through the city shopping without getting knocked down. Car drivers do have the Park & Ride facilities if they want to go into the city centre, so if trade is suffering maybe the traders` goods prices are too high compared with out-of-town shops. Also, it is a known fact that internet shopping is having a devastating effect on city centre shops though that might change with postal increases. I`m over the moon, after supporting YCFC for about 51 years, that at last a new stadium is being built guaranteeing the Club`s future after 8 years of being messed about by Council, traders and the one who set all of this off. johnabostock

8:05am Fri 18 May 12

Mr Anderson says...

Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend!
Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.
Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend! Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses. Mr Anderson

8:07am Fri 18 May 12

Mr Trellis says...

It is now time CYC supported the small businesses that make the city centre a unique shopping experience.
Get rid of the rag tag markets for a start and get some open air entertainment going.
It is now time CYC supported the small businesses that make the city centre a unique shopping experience. Get rid of the rag tag markets for a start and get some open air entertainment going. Mr Trellis

8:16am Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

great result for the whole of the city of York.

The planning officers saw right though the "over egged" scaremongering. In fact 2 officers added the comments "we will not be held to ransom by our scaremongering "the found deplorable. what a change on the look of Adam Sinclair’s face before and after the meeting. his arrogant approach to this York development was quiet astonishing. during those opponents addresses to the officers a high percentage of them turned and winked at Sinclair as if to say "didn’t I do good sir". THEY SAW RIGHT THROUGH THE LOT OF YOU , only Tory boys and green moaners voted against (wasn’t that a surprise)

Those in favour brought in expert after expert speaker including a proffressor.I think half way through Sinclair the address's realised his number was up as his face was a picture he had been rummbled and didnt he know it.

he will try and save face by repeating his garbage. the most telling information giving by the officers was that in 2002 SINCLAIR was against coppergate USING THEM SAME ARGUMENTS HAS HE DID YESTERDAY,
great result for the whole of the city of York. The planning officers saw right though the "over egged" scaremongering. In fact 2 officers added the comments "we will not be held to ransom by our scaremongering "the found deplorable. what a change on the look of Adam Sinclair’s face before and after the meeting. his arrogant approach to this York development was quiet astonishing. during those opponents addresses to the officers a high percentage of them turned and winked at Sinclair as if to say "didn’t I do good sir". THEY SAW RIGHT THROUGH THE LOT OF YOU , only Tory boys and green moaners voted against (wasn’t that a surprise) Those in favour brought in expert after expert speaker including a proffressor.I think half way through Sinclair the address's realised his number was up as his face was a picture he had been rummbled and didnt he know it. he will try and save face by repeating his garbage. the most telling information giving by the officers was that in 2002 SINCLAIR was against coppergate USING THEM SAME ARGUMENTS HAS HE DID YESTERDAY, paintitred

8:23am Fri 18 May 12

Micklegate says...

Some old bloke wrote:
Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large. Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections.
Right decision for York City? - yes

Right decision for York City Knights? - well they only decided they suppored it weeks ago.

The question was directly asked yesterday 'which community is this for?' - Huntington? York? YCFC fans?

No answer was provided, as it is a meaningless term when generally used.

What we do know is all of York is paying for it financially now (and probably will in the future again when it starts losing money); we will also pay for it with the fact that planning has now been made an auction system, that sustainable transport has been torn up and that the city centre will de damaged forever (to what extent is debatable).

As for 'business' in the city centre, they are indeed fighting their own corner. But can you clarify what you think Oakgate are? a charity? No, they make shops in the city look like minnows. The landowner of the land - is he donating it for the cause? Business will do very well out of this, it's just two businesses and a lot of ordinary shops will lose.
[quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large. Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections.[/p][/quote]Right decision for York City? - yes Right decision for York City Knights? - well they only decided they suppored it weeks ago. The question was directly asked yesterday 'which community is this for?' - Huntington? York? YCFC fans? No answer was provided, as it is a meaningless term when generally used. What we do know is all of York is paying for it financially now (and probably will in the future again when it starts losing money); we will also pay for it with the fact that planning has now been made an auction system, that sustainable transport has been torn up and that the city centre will de damaged forever (to what extent is debatable). As for 'business' in the city centre, they are indeed fighting their own corner. But can you clarify what you think Oakgate are? a charity? No, they make shops in the city look like minnows. The landowner of the land - is he donating it for the cause? Business will do very well out of this, it's just two businesses and a lot of ordinary shops will lose. Micklegate

8:26am Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Anderson wrote:
Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend!
Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.
Could go either way at the weekend, but that is football. The highs wouldn't be highs without the possibility (and experience!) of the lows. A bit of a metaphor for life in lots of ways! :-)

Not sure about wanting us to be thrashed - seems a little churlish to me - but each to their own.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend! Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.[/p][/quote]Could go either way at the weekend, but that is football. The highs wouldn't be highs without the possibility (and experience!) of the lows. A bit of a metaphor for life in lots of ways! :-) Not sure about wanting us to be thrashed - seems a little churlish to me - but each to their own. Even AndyD

8:34am Fri 18 May 12

pedalling paul says...

Even AndyD wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....!
Buses? But even accepting the car thing - ownership is still on the increase and you have to cater for that - not some fairyland, cycling pipe-dream that isn't happening. And how does one buy bulky goods in town? Queue into the centre, creating more emissions and fumes near where people live and work. Then what - lug your surround sound TV back to your car half a mile away? I respect your views and passions Paul, but you cannot shoe-horn them into every argument. Fuel prices? It costs me about £1 to drive to MX and back - its £2.40 on the bus. Long way to go yet with that argument.
I was echoing one registered speaker at the Planning Committee meeting who, like myself dares to look into the long term future rather than the short term blinkered one that many seem to adopt.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I wonder at the wisdom of creating more almost car-dependant developments, at a time when fuel prices are set to soar. Maybe in another 5-10 years, this concept will have had its day.....![/p][/quote]Buses? But even accepting the car thing - ownership is still on the increase and you have to cater for that - not some fairyland, cycling pipe-dream that isn't happening. And how does one buy bulky goods in town? Queue into the centre, creating more emissions and fumes near where people live and work. Then what - lug your surround sound TV back to your car half a mile away? I respect your views and passions Paul, but you cannot shoe-horn them into every argument. Fuel prices? It costs me about £1 to drive to MX and back - its £2.40 on the bus. Long way to go yet with that argument.[/p][/quote]I was echoing one registered speaker at the Planning Committee meeting who, like myself dares to look into the long term future rather than the short term blinkered one that many seem to adopt. pedalling paul

8:45am Fri 18 May 12

johnabostock says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend!
Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.
Could go either way at the weekend, but that is football. The highs wouldn't be highs without the possibility (and experience!) of the lows. A bit of a metaphor for life in lots of ways! :-)

Not sure about wanting us to be thrashed - seems a little churlish to me - but each to their own.
I was going to say something similar. It sounds as though he supports another team from wanting York thrashed, Luton by any chance or just bitter because Leeds haven`t succeeded this year. All i can say to mr Anderson is `What will be, will be the future`s not ours to see .......`
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend! Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.[/p][/quote]Could go either way at the weekend, but that is football. The highs wouldn't be highs without the possibility (and experience!) of the lows. A bit of a metaphor for life in lots of ways! :-) Not sure about wanting us to be thrashed - seems a little churlish to me - but each to their own.[/p][/quote]I was going to say something similar. It sounds as though he supports another team from wanting York thrashed, Luton by any chance or just bitter because Leeds haven`t succeeded this year. All i can say to mr Anderson is `What will be, will be the future`s not ours to see .......` johnabostock

8:46am Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Mr Anderson wrote:
Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend!
Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.
I recall saying you hoped we would "lose to Newport",
BOY I ENJOYED IT EVEN MORE.

SAD SACK
[quote][p][bold]Mr Anderson[/bold] wrote: Looking forward to visiting the new shops. But not as much as I'm looking forward to seeing the stadium plans fall through and YCFC getting thrashed at the weekend! Boy, am I looking forward to reading all your embarrassed excuses.[/p][/quote]I recall saying you hoped we would "lose to Newport", BOY I ENJOYED IT EVEN MORE. SAD SACK paintitred

9:14am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Mr Anderson

Bye Bye !
Mr Anderson Bye Bye ! walwynwasgod

9:24am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

I see you were still insulting me long after i got tired of your boring drivel ! My "snide" remarks really got to you. Chill out man. I'm sure you may return one day to support the club just like you did in your glory hunting days of the mid 80s. Yesterdays result was justice of the highest order. I'll just ignore your comments from now on mate. I know that i've supported City through thick and thin and i'm proud of that ! As i said to Crabtree, EVERY City fan should have backed the proposal. Now, just let us City fans enjoy our Sunday at Wembley as we try and make it arguably the best week in City's history. Come on City ! If i'm overweight now mate, i'll be twice as fat if we get the result we want !
AngryandFrustrated I see you were still insulting me long after i got tired of your boring drivel ! My "snide" remarks really got to you. Chill out man. I'm sure you may return one day to support the club just like you did in your glory hunting days of the mid 80s. Yesterdays result was justice of the highest order. I'll just ignore your comments from now on mate. I know that i've supported City through thick and thin and i'm proud of that ! As i said to Crabtree, EVERY City fan should have backed the proposal. Now, just let us City fans enjoy our Sunday at Wembley as we try and make it arguably the best week in City's history. Come on City ! If i'm overweight now mate, i'll be twice as fat if we get the result we want ! walwynwasgod

9:31am Fri 18 May 12

amike says...

The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'.

Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers.
The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'. Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers. amike

9:47am Fri 18 May 12

duffy says...

As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built. duffy

9:48am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

tommyinyork

Anderson's looking for a reaction. Ignore him mate. There's loads on here like that. Don't think he'd really have the balls to say it face to face outside Bootham Crescent would he ?
tommyinyork Anderson's looking for a reaction. Ignore him mate. There's loads on here like that. Don't think he'd really have the balls to say it face to face outside Bootham Crescent would he ? walwynwasgod

9:54am Fri 18 May 12

Paul29 says...

Just had a nice stroll from Lord Mayor's Walk to the new stadium site - 15 minutes. So much for being car dependent.
Just had a nice stroll from Lord Mayor's Walk to the new stadium site - 15 minutes. So much for being car dependent. Paul29

9:54am Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

amike wrote:
The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'.

Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers.
Well, I would say that it has had a bearing on it, yes, but the biggest reason is that Oakgate had lined up all their ducks in a row. They already had JL and M&S on board, where as the other proposal didn't. That was the bigger influencer I think.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'. Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers.[/p][/quote]Well, I would say that it has had a bearing on it, yes, but the biggest reason is that Oakgate had lined up all their ducks in a row. They already had JL and M&S on board, where as the other proposal didn't. That was the bigger influencer I think. speaks99

9:57am Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Labour Council sends out a clear message....

FOR SALE:
Planning Permissions;
All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted.
Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules.

CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country.
Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon. speaks99

10:09am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Crabtree is a buffoon ! He wants the Stadium though. Proper York fan he is !
speaks99 Crabtree is a buffoon ! He wants the Stadium though. Proper York fan he is ! walwynwasgod

10:11am Fri 18 May 12

richieorr says...

I do not get the argument for two big stores at Monks Cross taking trade away from the city centre? There are already lots of big stores at Monks Cross, as well as stores at Clifton Moor and at the Designer Outlet! Yes they will be big shops, but will their effect really be that dramatic, and does that effect really outweigh the investment and jobs created for the city? Probably not! Im sure all the same arguments were heard when the Designer Outlet was built, yet last time I looked the Outlet and the City Centre were both doing pretty well!

With regard to the stadium and the facilities it can provide for everyone in York, what a fantastic opportunity for the city! If you look at the regeneration, and the positive impact that the Hull Communty Stadium had there, and you will see that the new stadium will be a massive plus for the city!
I do not get the argument for two big stores at Monks Cross taking trade away from the city centre? There are already lots of big stores at Monks Cross, as well as stores at Clifton Moor and at the Designer Outlet! Yes they will be big shops, but will their effect really be that dramatic, and does that effect really outweigh the investment and jobs created for the city? Probably not! Im sure all the same arguments were heard when the Designer Outlet was built, yet last time I looked the Outlet and the City Centre were both doing pretty well! With regard to the stadium and the facilities it can provide for everyone in York, what a fantastic opportunity for the city! If you look at the regeneration, and the positive impact that the Hull Communty Stadium had there, and you will see that the new stadium will be a massive plus for the city! richieorr

10:24am Fri 18 May 12

jumpersforgoalposts says...

arguments for and against will no doubt rumble on, but one thing that must not be missed if this deal is going ahead is penalty clauses in the £millions, because no one will be forgiving if 'unforeseen'economic
/geological/architec
tural problems delay the completion of the community stadium once they are safely in their new shops. looking at the false starts at piccadilly, terrys and teardrop should be sufficient warning for the councillors.
arguments for and against will no doubt rumble on, but one thing that must not be missed if this deal is going ahead is penalty clauses in the £millions, because no one will be forgiving if 'unforeseen'economic /geological/architec tural problems delay the completion of the community stadium once they are safely in their new shops. looking at the false starts at piccadilly, terrys and teardrop should be sufficient warning for the councillors. jumpersforgoalposts

10:30am Fri 18 May 12

Cllr.John Galvin says...

I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.
I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong. Cllr.John Galvin

10:36am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Cllr Galvin

You seem like an honourable person to me. After all, you went with the flow of your party. Didn't want to ruffle any feathers eh ?
Cllr Galvin You seem like an honourable person to me. After all, you went with the flow of your party. Didn't want to ruffle any feathers eh ? walwynwasgod

10:38am Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated I see you were still insulting me long after i got tired of your boring drivel ! My "snide" remarks really got to you. Chill out man. I'm sure you may return one day to support the club just like you did in your glory hunting days of the mid 80s. Yesterdays result was justice of the highest order. I'll just ignore your comments from now on mate. I know that i've supported City through thick and thin and i'm proud of that ! As i said to Crabtree, EVERY City fan should have backed the proposal. Now, just let us City fans enjoy our Sunday at Wembley as we try and make it arguably the best week in City's history. Come on City ! If i'm overweight now mate, i'll be twice as fat if we get the result we want !
You got to me??!! That's laughable - I hadn't made one post on this thread and yet you feel the need to hark back to a post that I made at approx 5.20pm last night on a different thread! Ummmmmmm, I must have made an impression!

Good to see you are still trolling and knocking out abuse to those who don't agree with your views.

Just a couple of things I feel the urge to comment on - I had a season ticket at York from the late 1970's thru' to 1990 (I had to give it up as I could no longer afford it) so hardly a mid 1980's glory hunter - in addition, I went to many, many away games and given some of the facilities at other clubs, it was hardly glorious!! Glory hunters are the 1000s of YCFC fans that made the journey to Wembley last week and who will do so this week but who can't be bothered to turn up at a B S Con game in February when its wet and cold. However, you are clearly the most loyal supporter that YCFC has ever had so I bow to your superiority.

Secondly, I'm not your mate and given the way you conduct yourself on here, I wouldn't want to be!

Turning to the story, I fear that this is only the first step in a very long process - if one of the interested parties decides to take it to JR, or appeal and have it called in, it will be years before the development starts. For those John Lewis fans, I wouldn't be ditching my on-line account just yet!!
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I see you were still insulting me long after i got tired of your boring drivel ! My "snide" remarks really got to you. Chill out man. I'm sure you may return one day to support the club just like you did in your glory hunting days of the mid 80s. Yesterdays result was justice of the highest order. I'll just ignore your comments from now on mate. I know that i've supported City through thick and thin and i'm proud of that ! As i said to Crabtree, EVERY City fan should have backed the proposal. Now, just let us City fans enjoy our Sunday at Wembley as we try and make it arguably the best week in City's history. Come on City ! If i'm overweight now mate, i'll be twice as fat if we get the result we want ![/p][/quote]You got to me??!! That's laughable - I hadn't made one post on this thread and yet you feel the need to hark back to a post that I made at approx 5.20pm last night on a different thread! Ummmmmmm, I must have made an impression! Good to see you are still trolling and knocking out abuse to those who don't agree with your views. Just a couple of things I feel the urge to comment on - I had a season ticket at York from the late 1970's thru' to 1990 (I had to give it up as I could no longer afford it) so hardly a mid 1980's glory hunter - in addition, I went to many, many away games and given some of the facilities at other clubs, it was hardly glorious!! Glory hunters are the 1000s of YCFC fans that made the journey to Wembley last week and who will do so this week but who can't be bothered to turn up at a B S Con game in February when its wet and cold. However, you are clearly the most loyal supporter that YCFC has ever had so I bow to your superiority. Secondly, I'm not your mate and given the way you conduct yourself on here, I wouldn't want to be! Turning to the story, I fear that this is only the first step in a very long process - if one of the interested parties decides to take it to JR, or appeal and have it called in, it will be years before the development starts. For those John Lewis fans, I wouldn't be ditching my on-line account just yet!! AngryandFrustrated

10:48am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Cheers MATE !

I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE !
AngryandFrustrated Cheers MATE ! I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE ! walwynwasgod

10:54am Fri 18 May 12

ayork says...

Since the M and S on Piccadilly will now close, what retailer will take over such a huge space?
Since the M and S on Piccadilly will now close, what retailer will take over such a huge space? ayork

10:55am Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Cheers MATE ! I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE !
Troll
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Cheers MATE ! I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE ![/p][/quote]Troll AngryandFrustrated

10:57am Fri 18 May 12

TerryYork says...

Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.
I hope the electorate, many of whom are sports fans, are hoping for jobs in the area and want to take this city forward, past the gift shops for outsiders, vote you out.

You're in my ward and for the first time in my life I, and several of my friends, will be actively campaigning for the leading opposition when the next election are held.

I assume we won't be seeing you at Wembley on Sunday and I assume you will no longer be welcomed at any sporting event in York or related to York.

You also voted against jobs for the area, taking the city forward and supporting the ideal that York is a tourism park for outsiders to wander around gift shops.

It's a shame as I was a voter for your party, before this.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.[/p][/quote]I hope the electorate, many of whom are sports fans, are hoping for jobs in the area and want to take this city forward, past the gift shops for outsiders, vote you out. You're in my ward and for the first time in my life I, and several of my friends, will be actively campaigning for the leading opposition when the next election are held. I assume we won't be seeing you at Wembley on Sunday and I assume you will no longer be welcomed at any sporting event in York or related to York. You also voted against jobs for the area, taking the city forward and supporting the ideal that York is a tourism park for outsiders to wander around gift shops. It's a shame as I was a voter for your party, before this. TerryYork

10:58am Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

So the Camapign for Castleford are sore losers as well as liers then.

Planning on getting it called in. These people are holding this city back and should be named and shamed.
So the Camapign for Castleford are sore losers as well as liers then. Planning on getting it called in. These people are holding this city back and should be named and shamed. The Great Buda

11:02am Fri 18 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

TerryYork wrote:
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.
I hope the electorate, many of whom are sports fans, are hoping for jobs in the area and want to take this city forward, past the gift shops for outsiders, vote you out.

You're in my ward and for the first time in my life I, and several of my friends, will be actively campaigning for the leading opposition when the next election are held.

I assume we won't be seeing you at Wembley on Sunday and I assume you will no longer be welcomed at any sporting event in York or related to York.

You also voted against jobs for the area, taking the city forward and supporting the ideal that York is a tourism park for outsiders to wander around gift shops.

It's a shame as I was a voter for your party, before this.
Very well said Terry. These four have just ended their own political careers.

As far as "Mr Anderson" and his "I hope York City lose". That's the Barnitts manager, in case anyone wants to know who he is. Season ticket holder at Leeds United.

They need to be boycotted.
[quote][p][bold]TerryYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.[/p][/quote]I hope the electorate, many of whom are sports fans, are hoping for jobs in the area and want to take this city forward, past the gift shops for outsiders, vote you out. You're in my ward and for the first time in my life I, and several of my friends, will be actively campaigning for the leading opposition when the next election are held. I assume we won't be seeing you at Wembley on Sunday and I assume you will no longer be welcomed at any sporting event in York or related to York. You also voted against jobs for the area, taking the city forward and supporting the ideal that York is a tourism park for outsiders to wander around gift shops. It's a shame as I was a voter for your party, before this.[/p][/quote]Very well said Terry. These four have just ended their own political careers. As far as "Mr Anderson" and his "I hope York City lose". That's the Barnitts manager, in case anyone wants to know who he is. Season ticket holder at Leeds United. They need to be boycotted. PhilipInYork

11:09am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

And i've not touched a nerve. Tut Tut ! Just rejoicing the fact that you and your many anti-YCFC cronies have been beaten through democracy. The Tories have made themselves look fools. I think, my friend you are about to follow suit ! I await your predictable reply with your wide range of vocabulary.
AngryandFrustrated And i've not touched a nerve. Tut Tut ! Just rejoicing the fact that you and your many anti-YCFC cronies have been beaten through democracy. The Tories have made themselves look fools. I think, my friend you are about to follow suit ! I await your predictable reply with your wide range of vocabulary. walwynwasgod

11:12am Fri 18 May 12

KAT1965 says...

Micklegate wrote:
Some old bloke wrote:
Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large. Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections.
Right decision for York City? - yes

Right decision for York City Knights? - well they only decided they suppored it weeks ago.

The question was directly asked yesterday 'which community is this for?' - Huntington? York? YCFC fans?

No answer was provided, as it is a meaningless term when generally used.

What we do know is all of York is paying for it financially now (and probably will in the future again when it starts losing money); we will also pay for it with the fact that planning has now been made an auction system, that sustainable transport has been torn up and that the city centre will de damaged forever (to what extent is debatable).

As for 'business' in the city centre, they are indeed fighting their own corner. But can you clarify what you think Oakgate are? a charity? No, they make shops in the city look like minnows. The landowner of the land - is he donating it for the cause? Business will do very well out of this, it's just two businesses and a lot of ordinary shops will lose.
At the end of the day, we all know that the Stadium was a sweetner for the Oakgate retail development. That's called planning gain (emphasis on the word gain - or bung in Crabtree's parlance). Anyone who isn't naive knows that Oakgate are their to make money.

But don't forget, they have done a lot for the redevelopment of the city centre as well (albeit to make money). Swinegate was a blot on the city centre until Oakgate got involved. We can argue till the cows come home on the architectural merits of that area but at least it is popular and vibrant and now a vital link between the more established streets.

I admit, I am a YCFC fan - so I have a slight bias. But I am also a fan of the City having been born and brought up and worked there and I know that it needs to move with the times. nothing is certain in life but I am positive that, in 10-15 years time, York will still be vibrant and better for it.
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Some old bloke[/bold] wrote: Having followed today's events closely I feel strongly that the right decision was made, not just for York City FC and York City Knights but for the community at large. Sorry if I'm confusing any Tory councillors by using the word 'community' - they clearly have no idea what it means. They only seem bothered about protecting the interests of their business friends in the city centre, although they dress it up as some altruistic concern for the city generally. If they now try to stop this development by making appeals or forcing a public inquiry I think their constituents might well give a suitable response come the next local elections.[/p][/quote]Right decision for York City? - yes Right decision for York City Knights? - well they only decided they suppored it weeks ago. The question was directly asked yesterday 'which community is this for?' - Huntington? York? YCFC fans? No answer was provided, as it is a meaningless term when generally used. What we do know is all of York is paying for it financially now (and probably will in the future again when it starts losing money); we will also pay for it with the fact that planning has now been made an auction system, that sustainable transport has been torn up and that the city centre will de damaged forever (to what extent is debatable). As for 'business' in the city centre, they are indeed fighting their own corner. But can you clarify what you think Oakgate are? a charity? No, they make shops in the city look like minnows. The landowner of the land - is he donating it for the cause? Business will do very well out of this, it's just two businesses and a lot of ordinary shops will lose.[/p][/quote]At the end of the day, we all know that the Stadium was a sweetner for the Oakgate retail development. That's called planning gain (emphasis on the word gain - or bung in Crabtree's parlance). Anyone who isn't naive knows that Oakgate are their to make money. But don't forget, they have done a lot for the redevelopment of the city centre as well (albeit to make money). Swinegate was a blot on the city centre until Oakgate got involved. We can argue till the cows come home on the architectural merits of that area but at least it is popular and vibrant and now a vital link between the more established streets. I admit, I am a YCFC fan - so I have a slight bias. But I am also a fan of the City having been born and brought up and worked there and I know that it needs to move with the times. nothing is certain in life but I am positive that, in 10-15 years time, York will still be vibrant and better for it. KAT1965

11:18am Fri 18 May 12

Cllr.John Galvin says...

It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument.
Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.
It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument. Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule. Cllr.John Galvin

11:22am Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated And i've not touched a nerve. Tut Tut ! Just rejoicing the fact that you and your many anti-YCFC cronies have been beaten through democracy. The Tories have made themselves look fools. I think, my friend you are about to follow suit ! I await your predictable reply with your wide range of vocabulary.
Troll
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated And i've not touched a nerve. Tut Tut ! Just rejoicing the fact that you and your many anti-YCFC cronies have been beaten through democracy. The Tories have made themselves look fools. I think, my friend you are about to follow suit ! I await your predictable reply with your wide range of vocabulary.[/p][/quote]Troll AngryandFrustrated

11:23am Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument.
Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.
I guess your not in favour of elections then either. Silly comment to make Mr Galvin.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument. Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.[/p][/quote]I guess your not in favour of elections then either. Silly comment to make Mr Galvin. The Great Buda

11:25am Fri 18 May 12

Sidneysway says...

York City FC now have a brighter future. I pay tribute to Mr McGill and his family for keeping the club alive.
York City FC now have a brighter future. I pay tribute to Mr McGill and his family for keeping the club alive. Sidneysway

11:27am Fri 18 May 12

Sir Alex says...

I am really surprised that the tories voted against this proposal for investment, jobs and growth.

The city centre will generally do fine as it has so much else to offer, residents and tourists alike. One or two businesses will have to evolve as they always have had to (where have all the smithys gone ?).

The right decision has been reached and I think it would be undemocratic and a waste of time to continue the opposition.

Do the right thing now please, support it!
I am really surprised that the tories voted against this proposal for investment, jobs and growth. The city centre will generally do fine as it has so much else to offer, residents and tourists alike. One or two businesses will have to evolve as they always have had to (where have all the smithys gone ?). The right decision has been reached and I think it would be undemocratic and a waste of time to continue the opposition. Do the right thing now please, support it! Sir Alex

11:29am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Cllr Galvin

I think mob rule is a slight exaggeration. Mind you, your lot and the Campaign for York people speciallise in that don't you ?
Cllr Galvin I think mob rule is a slight exaggeration. Mind you, your lot and the Campaign for York people speciallise in that don't you ? walwynwasgod

11:37am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Troll

A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.
Later, in Scandinavian folklore, trolls became beings in their own right, where they live far from human habitation, are not Christianized, and are considered dangerous to human beings. Depending on the region from which accounts of trolls stem, their appearance varies greatly; trolls may be ugly and slow-witted or look and behave exactly like human beings, with no particularly grotesque characteristic about them. Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight. One of the most famous elements of Scandinavian folklore, trolls are depicted in a variety of media in modern popular culture.

Never been to Scandinavia in my life, MATE. Always thought i was quick witted. No, think you've got it wrong. Got that from a dictionary. You want to try one, it has more than one word in it !
AngryandFrustrated Troll A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings. Later, in Scandinavian folklore, trolls became beings in their own right, where they live far from human habitation, are not Christianized, and are considered dangerous to human beings. Depending on the region from which accounts of trolls stem, their appearance varies greatly; trolls may be ugly and slow-witted or look and behave exactly like human beings, with no particularly grotesque characteristic about them. Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight. One of the most famous elements of Scandinavian folklore, trolls are depicted in a variety of media in modern popular culture. Never been to Scandinavia in my life, MATE. Always thought i was quick witted. No, think you've got it wrong. Got that from a dictionary. You want to try one, it has more than one word in it ! walwynwasgod

11:37am Fri 18 May 12

Jaytea says...

York has signed its own death warrant. So sad. Prepare to welcome empty shops and even more dereliction in the historic centre. No reason to come at all now.
York has signed its own death warrant. So sad. Prepare to welcome empty shops and even more dereliction in the historic centre. No reason to come at all now. Jaytea

11:37am Fri 18 May 12

Jaytea says...

York has signed its own death warrant. So sad. Prepare to welcome empty shops and even more dereliction in the historic centre. No reason to come at all now.
York has signed its own death warrant. So sad. Prepare to welcome empty shops and even more dereliction in the historic centre. No reason to come at all now. Jaytea

11:39am Fri 18 May 12

Missy7878 says...

I'm yet to see a coherent argument from the people against this development as to why it will impact the city centre so horrifically. After the marathon debate yesterday, i still don't understand how a new M&S will destroy Barnitts. Perhaps I'm a bit thick. Can someone explain it to me because until they do, Barnitts and their chums just look like a load of whinging NIMBY's. I am interested to understand what LS plan to do with Piccadilly as a redevelopment there would easily negate the effects (not that there are any!) of any Monks X development but then I suppose that would require LS to actually do something with the land instead of bandying around threats to other developers who are trying to get on.
I'm yet to see a coherent argument from the people against this development as to why it will impact the city centre so horrifically. After the marathon debate yesterday, i still don't understand how a new M&S will destroy Barnitts. Perhaps I'm a bit thick. Can someone explain it to me because until they do, Barnitts and their chums just look like a load of whinging NIMBY's. I am interested to understand what LS plan to do with Piccadilly as a redevelopment there would easily negate the effects (not that there are any!) of any Monks X development but then I suppose that would require LS to actually do something with the land instead of bandying around threats to other developers who are trying to get on. Missy7878

11:39am Fri 18 May 12

kenstarsix says...

It's not often that I will praise Labour and Lib Dem Councillors but they got this one right. York can be both an historical & cultural icon and a leading retail centre!
It's not often that I will praise Labour and Lib Dem Councillors but they got this one right. York can be both an historical & cultural icon and a leading retail centre! kenstarsix

11:44am Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Troll A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings. Later, in Scandinavian folklore, trolls became beings in their own right, where they live far from human habitation, are not Christianized, and are considered dangerous to human beings. Depending on the region from which accounts of trolls stem, their appearance varies greatly; trolls may be ugly and slow-witted or look and behave exactly like human beings, with no particularly grotesque characteristic about them. Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight. One of the most famous elements of Scandinavian folklore, trolls are depicted in a variety of media in modern popular culture. Never been to Scandinavia in my life, MATE. Always thought i was quick witted. No, think you've got it wrong. Got that from a dictionary. You want to try one, it has more than one word in it !
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:-

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Troll A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology, although the word was also used about witches, berserkers and various other evil magical figures. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings. Later, in Scandinavian folklore, trolls became beings in their own right, where they live far from human habitation, are not Christianized, and are considered dangerous to human beings. Depending on the region from which accounts of trolls stem, their appearance varies greatly; trolls may be ugly and slow-witted or look and behave exactly like human beings, with no particularly grotesque characteristic about them. Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight. One of the most famous elements of Scandinavian folklore, trolls are depicted in a variety of media in modern popular culture. Never been to Scandinavia in my life, MATE. Always thought i was quick witted. No, think you've got it wrong. Got that from a dictionary. You want to try one, it has more than one word in it ![/p][/quote]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:- In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion AngryandFrustrated

11:46am Fri 18 May 12

Missy7878 says...

Excellent point just made by a colleague - If Barnitts can survive the opening of two B&Q stores, a couple of Travis Perkins depots, a Wicks, a Plumb Base and a Eddisons Electrical then a new John Lewis and an M&S will make exactly zero difference to their business. I think this point sums up the Anti argument beautifully.
Excellent point just made by a colleague - If Barnitts can survive the opening of two B&Q stores, a couple of Travis Perkins depots, a Wicks, a Plumb Base and a Eddisons Electrical then a new John Lewis and an M&S will make exactly zero difference to their business. I think this point sums up the Anti argument beautifully. Missy7878

11:51am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Once again i apologise to all the decent intelligent posters on here regarding my correspondence with AngryandFrustrated and the other idiot, Crabtree.

I just hope that the anti brigade "get over it" and reallise that the City Centre will not become affected financially. Businesses will not close, especially Mr Sinclair's, whose fine China is exported all over the world. I've never visited Barnitts, but i get the impression its a bit like the shop that the Two Ronnies did their "Fork handles" sketch in ! Like someone posted yesterday, Bettys will continue to prosper and the City Centre will always be busy. I think Mr Sinclair has probably done more harm to the likes of Mulberry Hall and Barnitts with his anti Monks Cross ranting. Not brilliant publicity Adam !
Once again i apologise to all the decent intelligent posters on here regarding my correspondence with AngryandFrustrated and the other idiot, Crabtree. I just hope that the anti brigade "get over it" and reallise that the City Centre will not become affected financially. Businesses will not close, especially Mr Sinclair's, whose fine China is exported all over the world. I've never visited Barnitts, but i get the impression its a bit like the shop that the Two Ronnies did their "Fork handles" sketch in ! Like someone posted yesterday, Bettys will continue to prosper and the City Centre will always be busy. I think Mr Sinclair has probably done more harm to the likes of Mulberry Hall and Barnitts with his anti Monks Cross ranting. Not brilliant publicity Adam ! walwynwasgod

11:54am Fri 18 May 12

TerryYork says...

Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument.
Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.
So you can't handle criticism and class me as part of mob rule. Absolutely pathetic comment from someone EMPLOYED by my council tax money. In fact, that warrants quoting and sent in a letter.

You need to grow a thicker skin if you think you have any ambitions in politics, something you clearly don't.

What a pathetic excuse for a councillor you are.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument. Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.[/p][/quote]So you can't handle criticism and class me as part of mob rule. Absolutely pathetic comment from someone EMPLOYED by my council tax money. In fact, that warrants quoting and sent in a letter. You need to grow a thicker skin if you think you have any ambitions in politics, something you clearly don't. What a pathetic excuse for a councillor you are. TerryYork

11:55am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary !
AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary ! walwynwasgod

11:57am Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

TerryYork

Think Galvin's political career has just gone up in flames. Reminds me of the Tory guy from Alan Partridge's send up of Question Time. Blithering idiot !
TerryYork Think Galvin's political career has just gone up in flames. Reminds me of the Tory guy from Alan Partridge's send up of Question Time. Blithering idiot ! walwynwasgod

11:58am Fri 18 May 12

Madasanibbotson says...

Would Mr Sinclair like to advise what percentage of his sales are to people with a YO postcode, as opposed to visitors/tourists.
The Tourists visit once or twice in a lifetime. York Council Tax payers shop on a regular basis, football and rugby league fans watch home games every two weeks (during the seaon).
Who should be looked after ?
Look forward to Mr Sinclair's answer.
Would Mr Sinclair like to advise what percentage of his sales are to people with a YO postcode, as opposed to visitors/tourists. The Tourists visit once or twice in a lifetime. York Council Tax payers shop on a regular basis, football and rugby league fans watch home games every two weeks (during the seaon). Who should be looked after ? Look forward to Mr Sinclair's answer. Madasanibbotson

12:04pm Fri 18 May 12

Jiffy says...

MARTIND17 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
does seem that way how did the university get permission to expand like that etc
Wasn't most of that agreed under the previous Lib Dem Council???
[quote][p][bold]MARTIND17[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]does seem that way how did the university get permission to expand like that etc[/p][/quote]Wasn't most of that agreed under the previous Lib Dem Council??? Jiffy

12:06pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

You can't get away from the fact that York is a tourist trap. We have millions of visitors each year to come to our city for the history and the sights. It would be interesting to see how many of these visitors go accross to Leeds for a days shopping whilst they visit out city? I suspect it is more than the C4Y are making out. Anything which keeps money in York instead of it going to Leeds and surrounding areas is a good thing in my opinion.

Plus, anyone who thinks the council should not be paying one penny for any of this, there is a strong case for now that the government are allowing local councils keep 50% of business rates generated in the city. Approx. £3.6m reasons in fact.
You can't get away from the fact that York is a tourist trap. We have millions of visitors each year to come to our city for the history and the sights. It would be interesting to see how many of these visitors go accross to Leeds for a days shopping whilst they visit out city? I suspect it is more than the C4Y are making out. Anything which keeps money in York instead of it going to Leeds and surrounding areas is a good thing in my opinion. Plus, anyone who thinks the council should not be paying one penny for any of this, there is a strong case for now that the government are allowing local councils keep 50% of business rates generated in the city. Approx. £3.6m reasons in fact. speaks99

12:08pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary !
Troll
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary ![/p][/quote]Troll AngryandFrustrated

12:10pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary !
Troll
Bored.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary ![/p][/quote]Troll[/p][/quote]Bored. speaks99

12:11pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Fantastic sense of humour !
AngryandFrustrated Fantastic sense of humour ! walwynwasgod

12:14pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Totally agree mate. There's only so many times you can type the word Troll in one day. He'll go away !
speaks99 Totally agree mate. There's only so many times you can type the word Troll in one day. He'll go away ! walwynwasgod

12:17pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

My fault for encouraging him as well !
speaks99 My fault for encouraging him as well ! walwynwasgod

12:20pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

speaks99 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary !
Troll
Bored.
Me too - however, walwynwasgod can't stop directing posts at me!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thanks for that useful information ! Why don't you take Crabtree down to York station to do some Trainspotting for the day. Get a life **** ! Look that up in your internet dictionary ![/p][/quote]Troll[/p][/quote]Bored.[/p][/quote]Me too - however, walwynwasgod can't stop directing posts at me! AngryandFrustrated

12:23pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

"Please Miss, it was he's fault, he started it !"

Grow up man, just ignore me. I've gathered i'm a Troll. Were you bullied at school ?
AngryandFrustrated "Please Miss, it was he's fault, he started it !" Grow up man, just ignore me. I've gathered i'm a Troll. Were you bullied at school ? walwynwasgod

12:33pm Fri 18 May 12

Cllr.John Galvin says...

TerryYork wrote:
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument.
Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.
So you can't handle criticism and class me as part of mob rule. Absolutely pathetic comment from someone EMPLOYED by my council tax money. In fact, that warrants quoting and sent in a letter.

You need to grow a thicker skin if you think you have any ambitions in politics, something you clearly don't.

What a pathetic excuse for a councillor you are.
Thanks one and all, this is my last post on this subject, but I would just like to say as I said in the Planning Committee I respect all those who spoke and supported the the "Ensbling Development", and yes I can accept criticsm of my decision. I voted the way I did because I believed it the right thing to do, and someone who is really passed his sell by date I don't have ambitions for a political career only to do my best for the Ward I represent and my best for the City of York, that is all nothing else. Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]TerryYork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument. Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.[/p][/quote]So you can't handle criticism and class me as part of mob rule. Absolutely pathetic comment from someone EMPLOYED by my council tax money. In fact, that warrants quoting and sent in a letter. You need to grow a thicker skin if you think you have any ambitions in politics, something you clearly don't. What a pathetic excuse for a councillor you are.[/p][/quote]Thanks one and all, this is my last post on this subject, but I would just like to say as I said in the Planning Committee I respect all those who spoke and supported the the "Ensbling Development", and yes I can accept criticsm of my decision. I voted the way I did because I believed it the right thing to do, and someone who is really passed his sell by date I don't have ambitions for a political career only to do my best for the Ward I represent and my best for the City of York, that is all nothing else. Cheers. Cllr.John Galvin

12:33pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated "Please Miss, it was he's fault, he started it !" Grow up man, just ignore me. I've gathered i'm a Troll. Were you bullied at school ?
troll
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated "Please Miss, it was he's fault, he started it !" Grow up man, just ignore me. I've gathered i'm a Troll. Were you bullied at school ?[/p][/quote]troll AngryandFrustrated

12:36pm Fri 18 May 12

Sawday2 says...

Can anyone state where, exactly, this new development will be. A link to a site plan/map would be useful.
Thank you.
Can anyone state where, exactly, this new development will be. A link to a site plan/map would be useful. Thank you. Sawday2

12:42pm Fri 18 May 12

onlooker says...

amike wrote:
The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'. Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers.
Exactly. Reading the comments here one could be forgiven for thinking the Stadium was the be all and end all of the matter. It isn't. And neither is football. YCFC are supported by only a tiny majority of the Greater York area and it's disappointing that the fans on here seem not to grasp the wider picture outside of their little footie bubble.
I am also amazed that so many people revere JL. It's only another dept store for heaven's sake, and how many times a year do you need to actually visit one of these? Some people need to get a life.
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: The fact that one scheme was approved and the other (expansion of Monks Cross) turned down would suggest that the vote had nothing to do with shopping and 'York being open for business' but a lot to do with a new stadium being provided 'on the cheap'. Lets hope the stadium doesn't become a white elephant like the current Ryedale Stadium is or a drian on councilor tax payers.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Reading the comments here one could be forgiven for thinking the Stadium was the be all and end all of the matter. It isn't. And neither is football. YCFC are supported by only a tiny majority of the Greater York area and it's disappointing that the fans on here seem not to grasp the wider picture outside of their little footie bubble. I am also amazed that so many people revere JL. It's only another dept store for heaven's sake, and how many times a year do you need to actually visit one of these? Some people need to get a life. onlooker

12:48pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Final word on the subject, and yes, i will ignore your single one word answer of "troll". Your user name sums you up. You are a very sad individual who used to support his football club and now doesn't ( you're not Adam Sinclair are you ?). No, you can't be, Mr Sinclair has a brain. You are a very bitter loser and i suggest you get yourself another hobby. Get yourself out more, get a girlfriend or something. Just let us York City fans enjoy doing things we like, such as meeting other people and enjoying ourselves on a Matchday, before hopefully cheering on our team to victory. I'm sure you will re-surface when something else upsets you, but in the meantime stick to your computer, geek !
AngryandFrustrated Final word on the subject, and yes, i will ignore your single one word answer of "troll". Your user name sums you up. You are a very sad individual who used to support his football club and now doesn't ( you're not Adam Sinclair are you ?). No, you can't be, Mr Sinclair has a brain. You are a very bitter loser and i suggest you get yourself another hobby. Get yourself out more, get a girlfriend or something. Just let us York City fans enjoy doing things we like, such as meeting other people and enjoying ourselves on a Matchday, before hopefully cheering on our team to victory. I'm sure you will re-surface when something else upsets you, but in the meantime stick to your computer, geek ! walwynwasgod

12:50pm Fri 18 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Cllr.John Galvin, Yeah, your ward really is threatened by two more stores at Monks Cross. Get a grip man.

You towed your party political line over jobs and the biggest sporting elements of this city. That is a disgrace.

Nice to see my council tax money is going towards you tossing the day off on here too.

Letter will also be sent about your comments on here. I encourage others to do likewise.

Elected officials should be made accountable for disgraceful comments towards council tax payers.
Cllr.John Galvin, Yeah, your ward really is threatened by two more stores at Monks Cross. Get a grip man. You towed your party political line over jobs and the biggest sporting elements of this city. That is a disgrace. Nice to see my council tax money is going towards you tossing the day off on here too. Letter will also be sent about your comments on here. I encourage others to do likewise. Elected officials should be made accountable for disgraceful comments towards council tax payers. PhilipInYork

12:51pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

amike wrote:
Dr Brian wrote:
GuyWithCommonSense wrote:
I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...
I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.
I wonder why???????????
because the whole committe of officers were confused as to what monks cross mgt(not oak gate) were asking for, the plan was changed at the last minute and nolonger represented the submittied plans. so it was refused of this reason, But invited to resubmit the revised plans,for consideration. nothing more than that, but if you were at the meeting you would have know, instead of spreading half truths and guesses, oh now who does that sound like.---hmmmm all thogether now!!
[quote][p][bold]amike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GuyWithCommonSense[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the extension of monks x will give local/small businesses a chance to open anywhere on the premises? I mean, surely a few independent stores would give monks x a bit more character...[/p][/quote]I think the other Monks Cross scheme - the extension of Monks Cross and change of size of shops etc) that was put before the planning committee today was not -passed.[/p][/quote]I wonder why???????????[/p][/quote]because the whole committe of officers were confused as to what monks cross mgt(not oak gate) were asking for, the plan was changed at the last minute and nolonger represented the submittied plans. so it was refused of this reason, But invited to resubmit the revised plans,for consideration. nothing more than that, but if you were at the meeting you would have know, instead of spreading half truths and guesses, oh now who does that sound like.---hmmmm all thogether now!! paintitred

12:56pm Fri 18 May 12

Jiffy says...

ayork wrote:
Since the M and S on Piccadilly will now close, what retailer will take over such a huge space?
Tesco probably!
[quote][p][bold]ayork[/bold] wrote: Since the M and S on Piccadilly will now close, what retailer will take over such a huge space?[/p][/quote]Tesco probably! Jiffy

1:06pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

who ever shows an interest in the empty shop, will find Sinclair and chums opposing it as they did in 2002.

he was well and truely rummbled last night.
who ever shows an interest in the empty shop, will find Sinclair and chums opposing it as they did in 2002. he was well and truely rummbled last night. paintitred

1:06pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

I believe Crabtree is still spouting on about Bill Woolley and Leeds Utd on the previous thread. I despair !
I believe Crabtree is still spouting on about Bill Woolley and Leeds Utd on the previous thread. I despair ! walwynwasgod

1:17pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Final word on the subject, and yes, i will ignore your single one word answer of "troll". Your user name sums you up. You are a very sad individual who used to support his football club and now doesn't ( you're not Adam Sinclair are you ?). No, you can't be, Mr Sinclair has a brain. You are a very bitter loser and i suggest you get yourself another hobby. Get yourself out more, get a girlfriend or something. Just let us York City fans enjoy doing things we like, such as meeting other people and enjoying ourselves on a Matchday, before hopefully cheering on our team to victory. I'm sure you will re-surface when something else upsets you, but in the meantime stick to your computer, geek !
Troll
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Final word on the subject, and yes, i will ignore your single one word answer of "troll". Your user name sums you up. You are a very sad individual who used to support his football club and now doesn't ( you're not Adam Sinclair are you ?). No, you can't be, Mr Sinclair has a brain. You are a very bitter loser and i suggest you get yourself another hobby. Get yourself out more, get a girlfriend or something. Just let us York City fans enjoy doing things we like, such as meeting other people and enjoying ourselves on a Matchday, before hopefully cheering on our team to victory. I'm sure you will re-surface when something else upsets you, but in the meantime stick to your computer, geek ![/p][/quote]Troll AngryandFrustrated

1:19pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Yawn
Yawn walwynwasgod

1:25pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision I, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.
I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision I, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs. peterstreet

1:28pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

peterstreet

Mob rule ?
peterstreet Mob rule ? walwynwasgod

1:31pm Fri 18 May 12

magicadey says...

Monks cross is rubbish for shopping though!!. People don't go and spend a day shopping there surely?, more likely pop over whilst at Asda..
Monks cross is rubbish for shopping though!!. People don't go and spend a day shopping there surely?, more likely pop over whilst at Asda.. magicadey

1:35pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

peterstreet wrote:
I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision I, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.
Yet again another numpty why thinks the only people supporting this project are football fans. Wrong. This is for residents and people who are sick of traders who spread unsubstantiated rubbish and try and pass it off as facts.

Peter Brown (ringleader for C4Y) tells us in May/June that the city is doing very well, yet in November he is telling us that the city is in "intensive care" because of the plans for MX.

Adam Sinclair campaigns against OOT shopping, but has a shop at the designer outlet (OOT last time I looked!)

These are the people who produced the campaign for York leaflet. If they cannot be honest about their principles it astounds me why anything they say can be believed, despite many miles of column inches from the advertisement happy Press?
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision I, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.[/p][/quote]Yet again another numpty why thinks the only people supporting this project are football fans. Wrong. This is for residents and people who are sick of traders who spread unsubstantiated rubbish and try and pass it off as facts. Peter Brown (ringleader for C4Y) tells us in May/June that the city is doing very well, yet in November he is telling us that the city is in "intensive care" because of the plans for MX. Adam Sinclair campaigns against OOT shopping, but has a shop at the designer outlet (OOT last time I looked!) These are the people who produced the campaign for York leaflet. If they cannot be honest about their principles it astounds me why anything they say can be believed, despite many miles of column inches from the advertisement happy Press? speaks99

1:36pm Fri 18 May 12

yorkonafork says...

I like how the majority of people (in this instance 'the sane') is now being described as 'mob rule'. That with the usual cry-baby lines of 'being bullied' (in the press comment's section for crying out loud!).

11-4 was the vote count. 11-4.

Don't like it, moan to someone who gives a hoot...sadly for you though, that's no one remotely important and this is going ahead. The lies didn't work before, there sure as hell aren't now.

And as for boycotting shops, these shops mention boycotting our city and moving so stuff 'em. It's sad people are sticking up for these out of towners and not their own city. Shame on you.
I like how the majority of people (in this instance 'the sane') is now being described as 'mob rule'. That with the usual cry-baby lines of 'being bullied' (in the press comment's section for crying out loud!). 11-4 was the vote count. 11-4. Don't like it, moan to someone who gives a hoot...sadly for you though, that's no one remotely important and this is going ahead. The lies didn't work before, there sure as hell aren't now. And as for boycotting shops, these shops mention boycotting our city and moving so stuff 'em. It's sad people are sticking up for these out of towners and not their own city. Shame on you. yorkonafork

1:37pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
peterstreet

Mob rule ?
I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: peterstreet Mob rule ?[/p][/quote]I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs. peterstreet

1:39pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority.

My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies.

There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been.

The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S?

I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.
I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles. AngryandFrustrated

1:48pm Fri 18 May 12

again says...

duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Hear, hear.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear. again

1:49pm Fri 18 May 12

Yorkie37 says...

I think the right decision has been made. The new facilities can be hopefully enjoyed by everybody & the two new shops wil hopefully attract more shoppers to the City tempting them away from Leeds etc. Traffic wise, there will only be one match every week or every other week, i've been to the stadium at Monks x when there was a big Rugby match on attracting over 4000 people & amazing, the entire North of York traffic network didn't grind to a standstill.
I think the right decision has been made. The new facilities can be hopefully enjoyed by everybody & the two new shops wil hopefully attract more shoppers to the City tempting them away from Leeds etc. Traffic wise, there will only be one match every week or every other week, i've been to the stadium at Monks x when there was a big Rugby match on attracting over 4000 people & amazing, the entire North of York traffic network didn't grind to a standstill. Yorkie37

1:52pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority.

My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies.

There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been.

The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S?

I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.
When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it.
York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail.

Complete drivel.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.[/p][/quote]When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel. speaks99

1:54pm Fri 18 May 12

chunkyyorkie says...

I agree with you peterstreet.
I am not commenting on the article in particular but only on some of the ‘comedians’ on here is that they do not seem to know how ridiculous they sound. The double standards by people on here make the most vocal of you just too funny for words.

York City fans who hate Leeds Utd (the second nearest local team) but are so desperate that they pander to the retail world equivalent of Chelsea and Man City!! It’s almost too good to be true!

Sadly as with most anonymous forum pages, they are inhabited by spineless cowards, with little else to do with their time apart from make up lies and tell untruths in a way that they never would in real life if they had to actually put their true names against the rubbish they spout. As always though the desperate attempts to distribute misinformation only discredits the opinions as pure desperation.
Thank goodness most people with a modicum of common sense and reasonable intelligence capable of seeing through it. Those of you who resort to the lowest acts only end up showing that you are perfectly capable of ruining your own credibility and argument.

Attempting to organise boycotts, libellous comments, defaming characters and baseless accusation are items showing as unacceptable on their own T&C’s – so the press are just as bad for allowing it. Try to express an opinion based only on truth if you don’t want to be laughed at!
I agree with you peterstreet. I am not commenting on the article in particular but only on some of the ‘comedians’ on here is that they do not seem to know how ridiculous they sound. The double standards by people on here make the most vocal of you just too funny for words. York City fans who hate Leeds Utd (the second nearest local team) but are so desperate that they pander to the retail world equivalent of Chelsea and Man City!! It’s almost too good to be true! Sadly as with most anonymous forum pages, they are inhabited by spineless cowards, with little else to do with their time apart from make up lies and tell untruths in a way that they never would in real life if they had to actually put their true names against the rubbish they spout. As always though the desperate attempts to distribute misinformation only discredits the opinions as pure desperation. Thank goodness most people with a modicum of common sense and reasonable intelligence capable of seeing through it. Those of you who resort to the lowest acts only end up showing that you are perfectly capable of ruining your own credibility and argument. Attempting to organise boycotts, libellous comments, defaming characters and baseless accusation are items showing as unacceptable on their own T&C’s – so the press are just as bad for allowing it. Try to express an opinion based only on truth if you don’t want to be laughed at! chunkyyorkie

1:56pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ?

How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ?


This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ?

You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word.

You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk. Mr Crabtree

2:02pm Fri 18 May 12

On the ball York says...

peterstreet wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: peterstreet Mob rule ?
I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.
Are you actually a York resident peterstreet??
Residents who actually cared about this city and its future would want to see development (be it oot) bring in new businesses, jobs etc not be calling for it all to fail at the first hurdle.
For York to compete with its larger neighbours Leeds, Hull etc we need to attract big name stores not turn them away, what the h*ll even a primark would do....
Think a question on the upcoming residents survey about this topic should be concidered....
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: peterstreet Mob rule ?[/p][/quote]I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.[/p][/quote]Are you actually a York resident peterstreet?? Residents who actually cared about this city and its future would want to see development (be it oot) bring in new businesses, jobs etc not be calling for it all to fail at the first hurdle. For York to compete with its larger neighbours Leeds, Hull etc we need to attract big name stores not turn them away, what the h*ll even a primark would do.... Think a question on the upcoming residents survey about this topic should be concidered.... On the ball York

2:04pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

chunkyyorkie wrote:
I agree with you peterstreet.
I am not commenting on the article in particular but only on some of the ‘comedians’ on here is that they do not seem to know how ridiculous they sound. The double standards by people on here make the most vocal of you just too funny for words.

York City fans who hate Leeds Utd (the second nearest local team) but are so desperate that they pander to the retail world equivalent of Chelsea and Man City!! It’s almost too good to be true!

Sadly as with most anonymous forum pages, they are inhabited by spineless cowards, with little else to do with their time apart from make up lies and tell untruths in a way that they never would in real life if they had to actually put their true names against the rubbish they spout. As always though the desperate attempts to distribute misinformation only discredits the opinions as pure desperation.
Thank goodness most people with a modicum of common sense and reasonable intelligence capable of seeing through it. Those of you who resort to the lowest acts only end up showing that you are perfectly capable of ruining your own credibility and argument.

Attempting to organise boycotts, libellous comments, defaming characters and baseless accusation are items showing as unacceptable on their own T&C’s – so the press are just as bad for allowing it. Try to express an opinion based only on truth if you don’t want to be laughed at!
I agree there is a lot of "crowing" going on, but a lot of these fans have been told repeatedly by the campaign4Lies that this is not going to happen and that this proposal will devastate York City Centre (despite there being no proof of this).
The disliek some York fans show towards Leeds Utd isn't because they are a "big" club. More because they are the nearest rival club, and possibly because they have seen residents of York choosing to support a team from miles away, are not the local team. Its nothing to do with being a "Chelsea" or "Man City".

Making up lies and untruths? Example? I can give you some very real examples of lies and untruths spouted by the campaign4lies. In fact one very member keeps coming on here spouting lie after lie.

There is no attempt to organise a boycott. There are poeple voicing there opinion that they might not shop in certain stores any more. Thats not organisation.

Libellous comments? Like calling an enabling development "a bribe" you mean?

Defaming characters? Where? I've written documented truth about Sinclair and Brown. Look it up on Goolge.

It's you, I'm afraid, who is going to be laughed at.
[quote][p][bold]chunkyyorkie[/bold] wrote: I agree with you peterstreet. I am not commenting on the article in particular but only on some of the ‘comedians’ on here is that they do not seem to know how ridiculous they sound. The double standards by people on here make the most vocal of you just too funny for words. York City fans who hate Leeds Utd (the second nearest local team) but are so desperate that they pander to the retail world equivalent of Chelsea and Man City!! It’s almost too good to be true! Sadly as with most anonymous forum pages, they are inhabited by spineless cowards, with little else to do with their time apart from make up lies and tell untruths in a way that they never would in real life if they had to actually put their true names against the rubbish they spout. As always though the desperate attempts to distribute misinformation only discredits the opinions as pure desperation. Thank goodness most people with a modicum of common sense and reasonable intelligence capable of seeing through it. Those of you who resort to the lowest acts only end up showing that you are perfectly capable of ruining your own credibility and argument. Attempting to organise boycotts, libellous comments, defaming characters and baseless accusation are items showing as unacceptable on their own T&C’s – so the press are just as bad for allowing it. Try to express an opinion based only on truth if you don’t want to be laughed at![/p][/quote]I agree there is a lot of "crowing" going on, but a lot of these fans have been told repeatedly by the campaign4Lies that this is not going to happen and that this proposal will devastate York City Centre (despite there being no proof of this). The disliek some York fans show towards Leeds Utd isn't because they are a "big" club. More because they are the nearest rival club, and possibly because they have seen residents of York choosing to support a team from miles away, are not the local team. Its nothing to do with being a "Chelsea" or "Man City". Making up lies and untruths? Example? I can give you some very real examples of lies and untruths spouted by the campaign4lies. In fact one very member keeps coming on here spouting lie after lie. There is no attempt to organise a boycott. There are poeple voicing there opinion that they might not shop in certain stores any more. Thats not organisation. Libellous comments? Like calling an enabling development "a bribe" you mean? Defaming characters? Where? I've written documented truth about Sinclair and Brown. Look it up on Goolge. It's you, I'm afraid, who is going to be laughed at. speaks99

2:05pm Fri 18 May 12

alfie says...

Apparently now tesco have jumped on board and are planning a giant tesco complex at monks cross which will contain a cinema and creche.
Apparently now tesco have jumped on board and are planning a giant tesco complex at monks cross which will contain a cinema and creche. alfie

2:07pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ?

How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ?


This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ?

You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word.

You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up. speaks99

2:11pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Think we're wasting our time with some of these morons.

ChunkyYorkie

I posted my Telephone number on here the other day (very anonymous). Hardly a spineless coward !

These people are living in the past.
speaks99 Think we're wasting our time with some of these morons. ChunkyYorkie I posted my Telephone number on here the other day (very anonymous). Hardly a spineless coward ! These people are living in the past. walwynwasgod

2:12pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

speaks99 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.
When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.
The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game.

Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.[/p][/quote]When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.[/p][/quote]The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game. Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person. AngryandFrustrated

2:20pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.
Coun Galvin, I commend you for your single-minded and honourable decision, to vote as you did.

It is clear that Labour councillors were whipped. Only one dissented by withdrawing, because he could not betray the LDF. One was a complete hypocrit by effectively sinking the LDF she has fought so hard for in the past. The others were just sheep, doing as they were told.

The Lib-Dems, realised that Labour would win the vote so took the cowards way out to save face and save votes - shame on them.

There were 11 hypocrits who voted against the Council's own Core Strategy, and were seduced by a bribe, dressed up as an 'enabling contribution'. They have lost all credibility, and I hope their actions are scrutinised by the Secretary of State.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: I have no wish to add to debate on the outcome of the Planning Meeting other than to say that despite suggestions to the contrary at no time was I"leaned upon politically" to oppose the scheme. I always make my own mind up on planning issues, anyone that knows me is quite aware that I do things and say things my way, right or wrong.[/p][/quote]Coun Galvin, I commend you for your single-minded and honourable decision, to vote as you did. It is clear that Labour councillors were whipped. Only one dissented by withdrawing, because he could not betray the LDF. One was a complete hypocrit by effectively sinking the LDF she has fought so hard for in the past. The others were just sheep, doing as they were told. The Lib-Dems, realised that Labour would win the vote so took the cowards way out to save face and save votes - shame on them. There were 11 hypocrits who voted against the Council's own Core Strategy, and were seduced by a bribe, dressed up as an 'enabling contribution'. They have lost all credibility, and I hope their actions are scrutinised by the Secretary of State. Mr Crabtree

2:22pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not.
Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you? speaks99

2:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

A little harsh stereotyping football fans as though they are some amorphous group to be generalised about. I sit next to an ex-director of Shepherds on one side and a lawyer on the other. Unless Lady AndyD comes, then there is a housewife/teaching assistant into the mix. Behind me is a print worker, in front a dinner lady and her family.

As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant.

As for grounds nowadays - I think there has been a vast improvement. Lots of women and children attend now, I'm taking my disabled daughter on Sunday, but sitting in the ordinary (non-disabled) sections as I know we'll be fine. The vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands. Where else would you hug somebody you didn't know!
Maybe come back and see, Angry & Frustrated, you might be pleasantly surprised. Sit with us if you want - I'll share my bovril with you! :-)
A little harsh stereotyping football fans as though they are some amorphous group to be generalised about. I sit next to an ex-director of Shepherds on one side and a lawyer on the other. Unless Lady AndyD comes, then there is a housewife/teaching assistant into the mix. Behind me is a print worker, in front a dinner lady and her family. As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant. As for grounds nowadays - I think there has been a vast improvement. Lots of women and children attend now, I'm taking my disabled daughter on Sunday, but sitting in the ordinary (non-disabled) sections as I know we'll be fine. The vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands. Where else would you hug somebody you didn't know! Maybe come back and see, Angry & Frustrated, you might be pleasantly surprised. Sit with us if you want - I'll share my bovril with you! :-) Even AndyD

2:24pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr C. You must lead a lonely existence... You are ignored for boring us to death about planning policies, you are mocked because you continue to spout the same rubbish and yet you continue to come back here time and time again. Got to admire your convictions I guess...
Mr C. You must lead a lonely existence... You are ignored for boring us to death about planning policies, you are mocked because you continue to spout the same rubbish and yet you continue to come back here time and time again. Got to admire your convictions I guess... speaks99

2:26pm Fri 18 May 12

Oncebitten says...

Well thank the almighty that York has seen sense and dragged itself into the 21st century.
As for the "What will happen to the City Centre Brigade"! York city centre was never made for large shops (or bendy buses), maybe the powers that be need to attract small individual/independa
nt shops to open without charging the earth to do so
or anothe bar/cafe!!!!!
Well thank the almighty that York has seen sense and dragged itself into the 21st century. As for the "What will happen to the City Centre Brigade"! York city centre was never made for large shops (or bendy buses), maybe the powers that be need to attract small individual/independa nt shops to open without charging the earth to do so or anothe bar/cafe!!!!! Oncebitten

2:26pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

yorkonafork wrote:
I like how the majority of people (in this instance 'the sane') is now being described as 'mob rule'. That with the usual cry-baby lines of 'being bullied' (in the press comment's section for crying out loud!).

11-4 was the vote count. 11-4.

Don't like it, moan to someone who gives a hoot...sadly for you though, that's no one remotely important and this is going ahead. The lies didn't work before, there sure as hell aren't now.

And as for boycotting shops, these shops mention boycotting our city and moving so stuff 'em. It's sad people are sticking up for these out of towners and not their own city. Shame on you.
If an enquiry is ordered I assure you that the Planning Tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more.

they will not be immpressed by your gob skiteing

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;
Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi
.gov.
uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: I like how the majority of people (in this instance 'the sane') is now being described as 'mob rule'. That with the usual cry-baby lines of 'being bullied' (in the press comment's section for crying out loud!). 11-4 was the vote count. 11-4. Don't like it, moan to someone who gives a hoot...sadly for you though, that's no one remotely important and this is going ahead. The lies didn't work before, there sure as hell aren't now. And as for boycotting shops, these shops mention boycotting our city and moving so stuff 'em. It's sad people are sticking up for these out of towners and not their own city. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]If an enquiry is ordered I assure you that the Planning Tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more. they will not be immpressed by your gob skiteing If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov. uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! peterstreet

2:30pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch.
AngryandFrustrated We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch. walwynwasgod

2:31pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

now you do need to give it a rest mr c.

11-4 and because they voted against your view.
it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal.

but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far,

seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in".
im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply
now you do need to give it a rest mr c. 11-4 and because they voted against your view. it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal. but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far, seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in". im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply paintitred

2:31pm Fri 18 May 12

Jazzper says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Cllr.John Galvin wrote:
It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument.
Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.
I guess your not in favour of elections then either. Silly comment to make Mr Galvin.
Mr Galvin....you've lost MY vote too !
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr.John Galvin[/bold] wrote: It is a truism that if the only way to make a point is to make personal attacks and make rather childish threats then you have lost the argument. Quite honestly I don't want your vote TerryYork you obviously believe in mob rule.[/p][/quote]I guess your not in favour of elections then either. Silly comment to make Mr Galvin.[/p][/quote]Mr Galvin....you've lost MY vote too ! Jazzper

2:32pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated

We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch.
Troll.

Sorry thought I'd get in there first.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch.[/p][/quote]Troll. Sorry thought I'd get in there first. speaks99

2:34pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ?
How many were not supported by a Planning Officers
recommendation?
How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ?
How many did not comply with the NPPF ?

Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument.

You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.[/p][/quote]How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles ! Mr Crabtree

2:37pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Nice one ! I was waiting for it. Hope you have a great day out on Sunday with the family. I'm quite a responsible person really. I just show my emotions occasionally ! We're in the Red Lion in Bushey from 11am if you're free.
speaks99 Nice one ! I was waiting for it. Hope you have a great day out on Sunday with the family. I'm quite a responsible person really. I just show my emotions occasionally ! We're in the Red Lion in Bushey from 11am if you're free. walwynwasgod

2:37pm Fri 18 May 12

TheTruthHurts says...

alfie wrote:
Apparently now tesco have jumped on board and are planning a giant tesco complex at monks cross which will contain a cinema and creche.
If they throw in a swimming pool they can have as much land as they want!
[quote][p][bold]alfie[/bold] wrote: Apparently now tesco have jumped on board and are planning a giant tesco complex at monks cross which will contain a cinema and creche.[/p][/quote]If they throw in a swimming pool they can have as much land as they want! TheTruthHurts

2:39pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtrees still at it !

He's as useful as Stevie Wonder's reading lamp !
Crabtrees still at it ! He's as useful as Stevie Wonder's reading lamp ! walwynwasgod

2:43pm Fri 18 May 12

BioLogic says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
.....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!!
Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about.

But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote].....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!![/p][/quote]Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about. But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium. BioLogic

2:49pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

paintitred wrote:
now you do need to give it a rest mr c. 11-4 and because they voted against your view. it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal. but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far, seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in". im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply
DIY - if you have the wit ? !!!
[quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: now you do need to give it a rest mr c. 11-4 and because they voted against your view. it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal. but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far, seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in". im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply[/p][/quote]DIY - if you have the wit ? !!! Mr Crabtree

2:52pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

BioLogic wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community.
So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
.....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!!
Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about.

But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium.
If every development could demonstrate "sustainable growth" for the city as a whole then I would say bring it on. Or would you prefer to see John Lewis' £3.6m contribution to council funds go to somewhere else - I hear Sheffield are in need of one?
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote].....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!![/p][/quote]Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about. But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium.[/p][/quote]If every development could demonstrate "sustainable growth" for the city as a whole then I would say bring it on. Or would you prefer to see John Lewis' £3.6m contribution to council funds go to somewhere else - I hear Sheffield are in need of one? speaks99

2:57pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ?
How many were not supported by a Planning Officers
recommendation?
How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ?
How many did not comply with the NPPF ?

Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument.

You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles !
I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way).
I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT.

Thank you and good night.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.[/p][/quote]How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles ![/p][/quote]I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night. speaks99

2:58pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

BioLogic wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.
.....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!!
Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about. But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium.
Correct !

Coun Merrett realises this - that's why he withdrew from the committee.

There will be division within the Labour ranks over this, as it will send shock waves through the Council, as they come to terms with the can of worms they have opened. The consequences of this are monumental and potentially catastrophic.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Something for the residents, something for shoppers, sports fans and the community. So pleased to see a council having the guts to stand up to the trader lobby and at last, at last, move this city forward.[/p][/quote].....and sticking two fingers up to the planning rules, and breaking their own LDF. Very brave or very stupid ? !!!![/p][/quote]Very Stupid. The floodgates have been opened and people don't realise what has happened. So the permission has been given. I will be very surprised if Mr Pickles doesn't call this one in because it flies in the face of everything that the NPPF is all about. But if it is allowed to stand it will make development so much less controlled in York, because the Council have chosen to ignore their own rules. That could have disastrous consequences for the city far beyond the getting a new stadium.[/p][/quote]Correct ! Coun Merrett realises this - that's why he withdrew from the committee. There will be division within the Labour ranks over this, as it will send shock waves through the Council, as they come to terms with the can of worms they have opened. The consequences of this are monumental and potentially catastrophic. Mr Crabtree

3:00pm Fri 18 May 12

HOWSHAM says...

Passed but very likely to get called in.Why? 9 labour councillors in the majority on the committee with the leader Mr Alexander coming out in the Press days prior to say it would be a disaster not to approve the application.Labour councillors vote for party reasons rather than what they themselves think to be right.
Best thing to do now is scrap all parking charges for the first 4 hours in the city centre and give it half a chance to compete with the out of town facilities,
Passed but very likely to get called in.Why? 9 labour councillors in the majority on the committee with the leader Mr Alexander coming out in the Press days prior to say it would be a disaster not to approve the application.Labour councillors vote for party reasons rather than what they themselves think to be right. Best thing to do now is scrap all parking charges for the first 4 hours in the city centre and give it half a chance to compete with the out of town facilities, HOWSHAM

3:03pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles !
I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.
Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward.

IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES !

Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ?

'YES' they have !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.[/p][/quote]How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles ![/p][/quote]I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.[/p][/quote]Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward. IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES ! Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ? 'YES' they have ! Mr Crabtree

3:04pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

HOWSHAM wrote:
Passed but very likely to get called in.Why? 9 labour councillors in the majority on the committee with the leader Mr Alexander coming out in the Press days prior to say it would be a disaster not to approve the application.Labour councillors vote for party reasons rather than what they themselves think to be right.
Best thing to do now is scrap all parking charges for the first 4 hours in the city centre and give it half a chance to compete with the out of town facilities,
What tosh. The City Centre has coped well with 3 out of town centres (according to Browns early last year) - two stores won't make a jot of difference.

Those against this scheme are Anti-York
[quote][p][bold]HOWSHAM[/bold] wrote: Passed but very likely to get called in.Why? 9 labour councillors in the majority on the committee with the leader Mr Alexander coming out in the Press days prior to say it would be a disaster not to approve the application.Labour councillors vote for party reasons rather than what they themselves think to be right. Best thing to do now is scrap all parking charges for the first 4 hours in the city centre and give it half a chance to compete with the out of town facilities,[/p][/quote]What tosh. The City Centre has coped well with 3 out of town centres (according to Browns early last year) - two stores won't make a jot of difference. Those against this scheme are Anti-York The Great Buda

3:04pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

thats the problem biologic its all coulds ,may bes and ifs.

i sat through the meeting yesterday. there was plenty of food for thought in what the "no's" were saying but as a whole pacakage the "yes" supporters and indeed the plans submitted brought alot more the party. I have to say what MAY have been the decided factor along with the very large carrot of need community stadium was the fact the (and this was minuted last night) that Adam Sincliar and C4Y(or what ever it was called in 2002) rejected city centre development for the same reasons he/they are against monks cross 2. Also In the words of councillors simpson-laing and reid " we didnt appricate the over egging of the figures on the % loss of the city center and they thought been held to ransom with some of the scaremongering spouted by some of the speakers"

i dont know Mr Sinclair as a man im sure hes quite plesant but the man that he has protrayed himself as is not one (or one of his type)i would choose to socilaize with. With out been offensive or gloating in any way, but Adams face dropped gradually throught the day when he knew it wasnt going his way. by the end he was like a little boy who had lost his puppy.

im sure its not the end of the story.

i would be very intrerested in the over turn rate the sos has .
i think i heard some where that 97% of refersals to the sos end up been sanctioned and the devlopments go ahead

it could be a long drawn our affiar but at least we are under way
thats the problem biologic its all coulds ,may bes and ifs. i sat through the meeting yesterday. there was plenty of food for thought in what the "no's" were saying but as a whole pacakage the "yes" supporters and indeed the plans submitted brought alot more the party. I have to say what MAY have been the decided factor along with the very large carrot of need community stadium was the fact the (and this was minuted last night) that Adam Sincliar and C4Y(or what ever it was called in 2002) rejected city centre development for the same reasons he/they are against monks cross 2. Also In the words of councillors simpson-laing and reid " we didnt appricate the over egging of the figures on the % loss of the city center and they thought been held to ransom with some of the scaremongering spouted by some of the speakers" i dont know Mr Sinclair as a man im sure hes quite plesant but the man that he has protrayed himself as is not one (or one of his type)i would choose to socilaize with. With out been offensive or gloating in any way, but Adams face dropped gradually throught the day when he knew it wasnt going his way. by the end he was like a little boy who had lost his puppy. im sure its not the end of the story. i would be very intrerested in the over turn rate the sos has . i think i heard some where that 97% of refersals to the sos end up been sanctioned and the devlopments go ahead it could be a long drawn our affiar but at least we are under way paintitred

3:05pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

On the ball York wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
walwynwasgod wrote: peterstreet Mob rule ?
I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.
Are you actually a York resident peterstreet??
Residents who actually cared about this city and its future would want to see development (be it oot) bring in new businesses, jobs etc not be calling for it all to fail at the first hurdle.
For York to compete with its larger neighbours Leeds, Hull etc we need to attract big name stores not turn them away, what the h*ll even a primark would do....
Think a question on the upcoming residents survey about this topic should be concidered....
If an enquiry is ordered I assure you, that the Planning tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more.

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;
Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi
.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]On the ball York[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: peterstreet Mob rule ?[/p][/quote]I am absolutely appalled by the standard of most of the above posts, seemingly from YCFC supporters. Vicious insults, lies and suggestions of boycotts against local business are who employ local people! You lot are a disgrace!! I for one will be writing to GOYH requesting a public enquiry into the mystifying decision made by the COYC planning decision. If the Minister calls the decision in, and I think that is what will happen, then it will be interesting to see a good barrister raising a few points that our Councillors seem to have ignored and you louts will then realise that planning appeal tribunals are not impressed by bad mannered ignorant mob rule. Do not crow too soon!! This decision could soon become a shambles with the potential to cost this city a great deal of money in costs.[/p][/quote]Are you actually a York resident peterstreet?? Residents who actually cared about this city and its future would want to see development (be it oot) bring in new businesses, jobs etc not be calling for it all to fail at the first hurdle. For York to compete with its larger neighbours Leeds, Hull etc we need to attract big name stores not turn them away, what the h*ll even a primark would do.... Think a question on the upcoming residents survey about this topic should be concidered....[/p][/quote]If an enquiry is ordered I assure you, that the Planning tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more. If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

3:05pm Fri 18 May 12

Missy7878 says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.
When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.
The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game. Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person.
I usually agree with A&F about most things they post about - siting of the big wheel etc but I have to disagree with you regarding the stadium. York has a long history of stifling development, particular places that increase jobs. All of the brown field sites would be much worse in terms of access than the A64. Can you imagine 6000 people trying to get to the British Sugar site and the disruption to the residential areas? The Monks X location isn't perfect but its the best we have thanks to 30 years of poor transport planning by CYC. If the people campaigning against this development could put the same passion into making a case to put another lane on the A1237, the main problem would be solved.

Yes there are idiots at every match but if we acted like every fan was like these idiots we may as well pack up the football league and go home. I support LUFC (born in Leeds) but I support YCFC's right to a decent ground and the chance to improve. I don'tmind my council tax being invested to support this. If YCFC does well, the city profile is raised and we all benefit in some small way.

I have to say that in the last 20 years I have lived all over the country. I have never encountered the sort of NIMBYism that seems to be endemic in York. This city needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide what it wants to be. At the current rate, York will always be a small time backwater that once had some Romans/Vikings living here instead of being a world class city in every respect. Its about time the council showed some balls and I commend them for doing so.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.[/p][/quote]When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.[/p][/quote]The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game. Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person.[/p][/quote]I usually agree with A&F about most things they post about - siting of the big wheel etc but I have to disagree with you regarding the stadium. York has a long history of stifling development, particular places that increase jobs. All of the brown field sites would be much worse in terms of access than the A64. Can you imagine 6000 people trying to get to the British Sugar site and the disruption to the residential areas? The Monks X location isn't perfect but its the best we have thanks to 30 years of poor transport planning by CYC. If the people campaigning against this development could put the same passion into making a case to put another lane on the A1237, the main problem would be solved. Yes there are idiots at every match but if we acted like every fan was like these idiots we may as well pack up the football league and go home. I support LUFC (born in Leeds) but I support YCFC's right to a decent ground and the chance to improve. I don'tmind my council tax being invested to support this. If YCFC does well, the city profile is raised and we all benefit in some small way. I have to say that in the last 20 years I have lived all over the country. I have never encountered the sort of NIMBYism that seems to be endemic in York. This city needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide what it wants to be. At the current rate, York will always be a small time backwater that once had some Romans/Vikings living here instead of being a world class city in every respect. Its about time the council showed some balls and I commend them for doing so. Missy7878

3:06pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
paintitred wrote:
now you do need to give it a rest mr c. 11-4 and because they voted against your view. it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal. but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far, seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in". im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply
DIY - if you have the wit ? !!!
but iam a lazy footyfan.

lol
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: now you do need to give it a rest mr c. 11-4 and because they voted against your view. it was a democratic vote in a public meeting. it was legal. but like you say lets see what the SOS says, if it gets that far, seriously mr c what are the conditions before the sos will be interested in a "call in". im sure the deteails are out there but equally sure you will have a quciker reply[/p][/quote]DIY - if you have the wit ? !!![/p][/quote]but iam a lazy footyfan. lol paintitred

3:11pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Missy7878 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.
When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.
The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game. Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person.
I usually agree with A&F about most things they post about - siting of the big wheel etc but I have to disagree with you regarding the stadium. York has a long history of stifling development, particular places that increase jobs. All of the brown field sites would be much worse in terms of access than the A64. Can you imagine 6000 people trying to get to the British Sugar site and the disruption to the residential areas? The Monks X location isn't perfect but its the best we have thanks to 30 years of poor transport planning by CYC. If the people campaigning against this development could put the same passion into making a case to put another lane on the A1237, the main problem would be solved.

Yes there are idiots at every match but if we acted like every fan was like these idiots we may as well pack up the football league and go home. I support LUFC (born in Leeds) but I support YCFC's right to a decent ground and the chance to improve. I don'tmind my council tax being invested to support this. If YCFC does well, the city profile is raised and we all benefit in some small way.

I have to say that in the last 20 years I have lived all over the country. I have never encountered the sort of NIMBYism that seems to be endemic in York. This city needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide what it wants to be. At the current rate, York will always be a small time backwater that once had some Romans/Vikings living here instead of being a world class city in every respect. Its about time the council showed some balls and I commend them for doing so.
York benefits upwards of £5million every year thanks to its football club alone. Thats not money going into the Club, thats money going into the City, into Jobs, into people.
[quote][p][bold]Missy7878[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: I don't disagree - unfortunately, the sort of loutish behaviour that is shown with the insults etc is another reason why I gave up going to live football matches - there are always a few that spoil it for the majority. My concerns over the development are that it is to be built on green belt land, and but for the bribery of a new stadium, the plans would not have got off the architect's desk, let alone to the planning stage! I would be astounded if this wasn't called in as it contravenes virtually every local planning policy (altho that policy now looks almost defunct) as well as most national policies. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could have been considered for this (eg British Sugar, the Teardrop around the station etc) but they appear not to have been. The laughable thing about the whole development will be the potential chaos that will abound on the roads etc on match day. The A64, ring road etc are already gridlocked most weekends. There is a limit to how many feeder lanes and bus lanes that can be put in to mitigate this. If the YCFC mob are to be believed and there are going to be 1000s attending at their games, the whole area will be gridlocked. How many people will be willing to spend an hour in a car, just to go to JL or M&S? I pity the poor people that live in the New Lane/Jockey Lane part of Huntington because their lives will become blighted with stationary traffic as a result of this decision, assuming of course it is not thrown out on appeal or by Mr Pickles.[/p][/quote]When was the last time you went to a football match. What loutish behavior? I've been many times this and previous seasons, and yes there is a bit of bad language, but that's the worst of it. York supporters on the whole are a thoroughly decent lot. Perhaps you should take the time to get to know what the supporters are like instead of branding us with something that you've picked up in the daily mail. Complete drivel.[/p][/quote]The last time I went to a football match was this season FYI. However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically - I was referring to a core element of fans that every club has or are you going to pretend that all YCFC fans are holier than thou? As I have posted previously I have been to many away games and the vitriole and abuse that is shouted at opposing fans can be quite intimidating - the final straw for me was when at an away game, a young lad in front of us was reduced to tears - when I asked his dad why, I was told that he was frightened by all the shouting and abuse and he just wanted to go home. That for me was a very sad moment - a young 5 year old boy did not feel safe, even tho' he was seated with supporters for his team. So please don't lecture me on football supporters - I've had 30 odd years of mixing with them and it is the actions of a few that tarnish the game. Also, FYI, I'm not a Mail reader - I am more of a Mirror person.[/p][/quote]I usually agree with A&F about most things they post about - siting of the big wheel etc but I have to disagree with you regarding the stadium. York has a long history of stifling development, particular places that increase jobs. All of the brown field sites would be much worse in terms of access than the A64. Can you imagine 6000 people trying to get to the British Sugar site and the disruption to the residential areas? The Monks X location isn't perfect but its the best we have thanks to 30 years of poor transport planning by CYC. If the people campaigning against this development could put the same passion into making a case to put another lane on the A1237, the main problem would be solved. Yes there are idiots at every match but if we acted like every fan was like these idiots we may as well pack up the football league and go home. I support LUFC (born in Leeds) but I support YCFC's right to a decent ground and the chance to improve. I don'tmind my council tax being invested to support this. If YCFC does well, the city profile is raised and we all benefit in some small way. I have to say that in the last 20 years I have lived all over the country. I have never encountered the sort of NIMBYism that seems to be endemic in York. This city needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide what it wants to be. At the current rate, York will always be a small time backwater that once had some Romans/Vikings living here instead of being a world class city in every respect. Its about time the council showed some balls and I commend them for doing so.[/p][/quote]York benefits upwards of £5million every year thanks to its football club alone. Thats not money going into the Club, thats money going into the City, into Jobs, into people. The Great Buda

3:13pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:-

Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ?

He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ?
Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:- Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ? He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ? Mr Crabtree

3:16pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

You're the sort of person that would go on a killing spree in McDonalds (probably after taking Bill Woolley hostage !).
Crabtree You're the sort of person that would go on a killing spree in McDonalds (probably after taking Bill Woolley hostage !). walwynwasgod

3:16pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

I thought you where wolley?
I thought you where wolley? The Great Buda

3:17pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles !
I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.
Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward.

IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES !

Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ?

'YES' they have !
How can I put this any more simply than I already have done.

I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to your initial comment about bribery with an ENABLING DEVELOPMENT.

One day I would be fascinated to listen you rant on and on about local planning policies, but today, my friend, is not that day.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.[/p][/quote]How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles ![/p][/quote]I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.[/p][/quote]Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward. IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES ! Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ? 'YES' they have ![/p][/quote]How can I put this any more simply than I already have done. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to your initial comment about bribery with an ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. One day I would be fascinated to listen you rant on and on about local planning policies, but today, my friend, is not that day. speaks99

3:21pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:-

Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ?

He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ?
My dad was 55 when he retired. Some people work hard all their life and then choose to retire early. I am throwing money into my pension like its going out of fashion because I too hold that aspiration. Some fortunate people plan ahead for the future and financially are able to enjoy their retirement whilst they are fit and able to do so.

But never mind that. Why be reasonable when you can hide behind a computer screen and throw mud at a local councillor?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:- Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ? He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ?[/p][/quote]My dad was 55 when he retired. Some people work hard all their life and then choose to retire early. I am throwing money into my pension like its going out of fashion because I too hold that aspiration. Some fortunate people plan ahead for the future and financially are able to enjoy their retirement whilst they are fit and able to do so. But never mind that. Why be reasonable when you can hide behind a computer screen and throw mud at a local councillor? speaks99

3:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Alpha Kenny Thing says...

Big brown envelopes all round!
Big brown envelopes all round! Alpha Kenny Thing

3:24pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

If i here Woolley's name once more, i'll probably go on a killing spree myself. Crabtree, he probably took early retirement because he will get a nice fat pension (like most of them do). He is no different to Galvin and the others who voted yesterday. There were no bungs, bribes or anything. Face it man, the vote went ahead because this is what the people of York wanted. I spent time handing out leaflets in the City Centre and almost everyone i spoke to was in favour of the development. Get it in to your head that most Councillors do the job for the money. The labour lot voted Yes, the Tories, No along with Swampy. Simple really.
If i here Woolley's name once more, i'll probably go on a killing spree myself. Crabtree, he probably took early retirement because he will get a nice fat pension (like most of them do). He is no different to Galvin and the others who voted yesterday. There were no bungs, bribes or anything. Face it man, the vote went ahead because this is what the people of York wanted. I spent time handing out leaflets in the City Centre and almost everyone i spoke to was in favour of the development. Get it in to your head that most Councillors do the job for the money. The labour lot voted Yes, the Tories, No along with Swampy. Simple really. walwynwasgod

3:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Thisisme wrote:
Magicman! wrote: Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!!
And.....the conservatives will be there at Wembley on Sunday on a freebie! Cllr Gillies has clearly whipped his party in to the no brigade......and he claims to be a City supporter?!
He is a Councillor and represents the intrerests of all York people not just the football club. He said the business plan is lacking, and did not want to make a decision on a flawed plan, or one that goes against all the rules.

He made the right call, and his single-minded Conservative colleagues who voted did likewise. They have their integrity intact, whereas Labour and Lib-Dems acted disgracefully by ignoring their own policies and national planning guidelines !
[quote][p][bold]Thisisme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: Notice it was the Conservatives and Greens who said 'No'. Now then, considering what happened to Coppergate 2, and that the opponents are EXACTLY the same traders as back then, do not be suprised if we get a Public Enquiry, Judicial Review, and maybe even some Vogon council coming to scrutinise the development!![/p][/quote]And.....the conservatives will be there at Wembley on Sunday on a freebie! Cllr Gillies has clearly whipped his party in to the no brigade......and he claims to be a City supporter?![/p][/quote]He is a Councillor and represents the intrerests of all York people not just the football club. He said the business plan is lacking, and did not want to make a decision on a flawed plan, or one that goes against all the rules. He made the right call, and his single-minded Conservative colleagues who voted did likewise. They have their integrity intact, whereas Labour and Lib-Dems acted disgracefully by ignoring their own policies and national planning guidelines ! Mr Crabtree

3:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Tess21 says...

It would be great if there could be more support for people who can't get over to shop at Monks Cross. The main shopping street in Acomb has become an area which has seen over a dozen empty retail units and far too many charity shops and betting shops. There is a high population, over 25000 people live in the Acomb area including many people without their own transport and without direct access by public transport to Monks Cross. The council should show more support to rejuvinate Acomb's shops and for the local people to have access to nearby shopping facilities. This is as important as allowing the new development over the other side of the city, miles away from Acomb. Finance from the potential business rates at Monks Cross could be used to fund improvements to Acomb's existing shopping areas and encourage retailers to open up the empty shop units by having reduced business rates and incentives to take on employees who may not be able to travel up to Monks Cross to work.
It would be great if there could be more support for people who can't get over to shop at Monks Cross. The main shopping street in Acomb has become an area which has seen over a dozen empty retail units and far too many charity shops and betting shops. There is a high population, over 25000 people live in the Acomb area including many people without their own transport and without direct access by public transport to Monks Cross. The council should show more support to rejuvinate Acomb's shops and for the local people to have access to nearby shopping facilities. This is as important as allowing the new development over the other side of the city, miles away from Acomb. Finance from the potential business rates at Monks Cross could be used to fund improvements to Acomb's existing shopping areas and encourage retailers to open up the empty shop units by having reduced business rates and incentives to take on employees who may not be able to travel up to Monks Cross to work. Tess21

3:25pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
speaks99

Nice one ! I was waiting for it. Hope you have a great day out on Sunday with the family. I'm quite a responsible person really. I just show my emotions occasionally ! We're in the Red Lion in Bushey from 11am if you're free.
Thanks for the offer. I'm getting into Kings Cross at 11.30 so have a bit of time to spare, though I might spend it in the Torch in Wembley (to soak up the atmosphere... Nothing else... Heaven forbid if there was any loutish behaviour going on ;o)
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: speaks99 Nice one ! I was waiting for it. Hope you have a great day out on Sunday with the family. I'm quite a responsible person really. I just show my emotions occasionally ! We're in the Red Lion in Bushey from 11am if you're free.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the offer. I'm getting into Kings Cross at 11.30 so have a bit of time to spare, though I might spend it in the Torch in Wembley (to soak up the atmosphere... Nothing else... Heaven forbid if there was any loutish behaviour going on ;o) speaks99

3:26pm Fri 18 May 12

hifive says...

I'm very pleased with the decision. Development is necessary so what better place than out of town so as not to impact on the beautiful historic features of York? Apparently according to city centre traders there'll be no presence here due to the parking charges etc. What about us pedestrians? There are a vast amount of people who live within comfortable walking distance of the city centre. If anything it'll be more difficult for the likes of myself to get to the new development as I'll have to take the bus! Some very weak and overly dramatic arguments against it, I must say. I'm pleased that there will be more jobs created and more choice for the residents. I pay my taxes, I contribute to the local economy, therefore I think it's reasonable that some decisions are made with the likes of myself in mind. The Tories have (yet again) shown themselves up and reinforced their own negative stereotype. I think people should accept it and stop being petty now. It's just embarrassing on their part. If I'm ever tempted to do less shopping in the city centre it will be in reaction to the whinging NIMBYs and not because of an extra 2 shops at Monks Cross. If you want to blame someone for a drop in trade, blame internet shopping, too many luxurious gift shops selling non essential goods that aren't viable in today's economic climate and the fact that the lack of employment means a lack of disposable income.
I'm very pleased with the decision. Development is necessary so what better place than out of town so as not to impact on the beautiful historic features of York? Apparently according to city centre traders there'll be no presence here due to the parking charges etc. What about us pedestrians? There are a vast amount of people who live within comfortable walking distance of the city centre. If anything it'll be more difficult for the likes of myself to get to the new development as I'll have to take the bus! Some very weak and overly dramatic arguments against it, I must say. I'm pleased that there will be more jobs created and more choice for the residents. I pay my taxes, I contribute to the local economy, therefore I think it's reasonable that some decisions are made with the likes of myself in mind. The Tories have (yet again) shown themselves up and reinforced their own negative stereotype. I think people should accept it and stop being petty now. It's just embarrassing on their part. If I'm ever tempted to do less shopping in the city centre it will be in reaction to the whinging NIMBYs and not because of an extra 2 shops at Monks Cross. If you want to blame someone for a drop in trade, blame internet shopping, too many luxurious gift shops selling non essential goods that aren't viable in today's economic climate and the fact that the lack of employment means a lack of disposable income. hifive

3:27pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever.
Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever. speaks99

3:29pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

As for Gillies. What a joke of a man. "Well done on winning the FA Trophy, now i want to kill your club. By the way, any free tickets for Sunday ?"
As for Gillies. What a joke of a man. "Well done on winning the FA Trophy, now i want to kill your club. By the way, any free tickets for Sunday ?" walwynwasgod

3:30pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Looks like the Press are finaly censoring some of the silly comments from the losing side; not before time.
Looks like the Press are finaly censoring some of the silly comments from the losing side; not before time. The Great Buda

3:36pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

speaks99

Have a great day mate (I can call you that, i hope !).
speaks99 Have a great day mate (I can call you that, i hope !). walwynwasgod

3:41pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

speaks99 wrote:
Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches".

Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots.

Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!). AngryandFrustrated

3:43pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Flat face Gillies should be pelted with rotten fruit in the stocks outside York Minster for his hypocritical views. The man is a disgrace. Lets hope the ugly face of football doesn't appear at Wembley this Sunday (and i don't mean the Luton fans behaviour !)
Flat face Gillies should be pelted with rotten fruit in the stocks outside York Minster for his hypocritical views. The man is a disgrace. Lets hope the ugly face of football doesn't appear at Wembley this Sunday (and i don't mean the Luton fans behaviour !) walwynwasgod

3:44pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches".

Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots.

Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
What aboutRace goers?

If you want to tar people with a brush you may as go the whole way.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]What aboutRace goers? If you want to tar people with a brush you may as go the whole way. The Great Buda

3:45pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Cheers MATE ! I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE !
McGill saved the club, not you, but, you can save it when he pulls his cash out, and there is nothing left.

Let's see your reaction when BC doesn't get anywhere near the £3.7m Bill Woolley had it valued at in 2008 !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Cheers MATE ! I think you'll find out that you were in the minority and that justice was done yesterday. It is thanks to "loyal supporters" like myself that the club is where it is at today. Myself and many others have fought to save this club we all love. York City fans don't want to listen to your crap. As i stated to your mate Crabtree, ALL York City supporters should approve the decision, as a "no" vote would almost have condemned the club to a slow death ! Yes, football is expensive, but some of us have stuck by the club and have not turned against them like you clearly have MATE ![/p][/quote]McGill saved the club, not you, but, you can save it when he pulls his cash out, and there is nothing left. Let's see your reaction when BC doesn't get anywhere near the £3.7m Bill Woolley had it valued at in 2008 ! Mr Crabtree

3:45pm Fri 18 May 12

Groovykindalove says...

Good point. Gillies turned up at the midweek reception for the club, got stuck into the free hospitality and then shows up at the planning meeting to put the boot into the football club. Two faced hypocrite!!!!!
Good point. Gillies turned up at the midweek reception for the club, got stuck into the free hospitality and then shows up at the planning meeting to put the boot into the football club. Two faced hypocrite!!!!! Groovykindalove

3:49pm Fri 18 May 12

Micklegate says...

speaks99 wrote:
Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever.
'labour initiative'???? It is nearly a decade of Lib Dem work and less than a year of Labour work - at least give the credit/blame where it is due!!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever.[/p][/quote]'labour initiative'???? It is nearly a decade of Lib Dem work and less than a year of Labour work - at least give the credit/blame where it is due!! Micklegate

3:50pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

Even AndyD wrote:
A little harsh stereotyping football fans as though they are some amorphous group to be generalised about. I sit next to an ex-director of Shepherds on one side and a lawyer on the other. Unless Lady AndyD comes, then there is a housewife/teaching assistant into the mix. Behind me is a print worker, in front a dinner lady and her family. As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant. As for grounds nowadays - I think there has been a vast improvement. Lots of women and children attend now, I'm taking my disabled daughter on Sunday, but sitting in the ordinary (non-disabled) sections as I know we'll be fine. The vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands. Where else would you hug somebody you didn't know! Maybe come back and see, Angry & Frustrated, you might be pleasantly surprised. Sit with us if you want - I'll share my bovril with you! :-)
I agree with your views that the "the vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands." I wish YCFC no ill at all and contrary to the sarcastics remarks made yesterday by other posters, I will miss the match days and the (smallish) roar that goes up when York scores. However, just because I do not believe a new stadium should be built on green belt land does not make me anti York or anti YCFC.

And thank you for the offer re the bovril!! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: A little harsh stereotyping football fans as though they are some amorphous group to be generalised about. I sit next to an ex-director of Shepherds on one side and a lawyer on the other. Unless Lady AndyD comes, then there is a housewife/teaching assistant into the mix. Behind me is a print worker, in front a dinner lady and her family. As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant. As for grounds nowadays - I think there has been a vast improvement. Lots of women and children attend now, I'm taking my disabled daughter on Sunday, but sitting in the ordinary (non-disabled) sections as I know we'll be fine. The vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands. Where else would you hug somebody you didn't know! Maybe come back and see, Angry & Frustrated, you might be pleasantly surprised. Sit with us if you want - I'll share my bovril with you! :-)[/p][/quote]I agree with your views that the "the vast majority of fans are just human beings and there is some great feeling of togetherness, humour and common bond to be found on the terraces and in the stands." I wish YCFC no ill at all and contrary to the sarcastics remarks made yesterday by other posters, I will miss the match days and the (smallish) roar that goes up when York scores. However, just because I do not believe a new stadium should be built on green belt land does not make me anti York or anti YCFC. And thank you for the offer re the bovril!! :-) AngryandFrustrated

3:53pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

There are so many games (a handful) that need to be policed throughout the season. The Police make that decision. Inside the ground, the majority of games are policed by stewards (you won't know this because you don't visit regularly). The police patrol the streets outside because they choose to. I feel more threatened in the City Centre when it is York Races than i do on a match day. I speak to opposition fans in the Social club and the banter is excellent. We do the same at Away games. Why don't you come along to a game to see how much it has changed since the days of our beloved Keith ? We did have the occasional flare thrown a couple of years ago by the odd youth, but generally speaking i always feel safe both home and away. You will always find a Bouncer on the door at the Maltings every weekend. Some of those shoppers can get really nasty !
AngryandFrustrated There are so many games (a handful) that need to be policed throughout the season. The Police make that decision. Inside the ground, the majority of games are policed by stewards (you won't know this because you don't visit regularly). The police patrol the streets outside because they choose to. I feel more threatened in the City Centre when it is York Races than i do on a match day. I speak to opposition fans in the Social club and the banter is excellent. We do the same at Away games. Why don't you come along to a game to see how much it has changed since the days of our beloved Keith ? We did have the occasional flare thrown a couple of years ago by the odd youth, but generally speaking i always feel safe both home and away. You will always find a Bouncer on the door at the Maltings every weekend. Some of those shoppers can get really nasty ! walwynwasgod

3:55pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch.
You are clearly a passionate fan and I agree that what you refer to above is not loutish behaviour - (see by not trolling there are some things we can agree on!). However, and I will repeat, just because I do not agree that the stadium should be built on green belt land does not make me anti York or anti YCFC or worthy of personal abuse - it just means that my priorities in life are different to yours
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated We also organised a Football Match a couple of years ago in aid of a young man who sadly died playing the game he loved (Matt Gadsby). I don't think this is the behaviour of loutish football fans. We also helped a young lads team from the North East who were struggling financially. We organised a Football match to aid them. This was organised by a Supporters Branch and not a Professional Club. Fans groups help each other. You are way out of touch.[/p][/quote]You are clearly a passionate fan and I agree that what you refer to above is not loutish behaviour - (see by not trolling there are some things we can agree on!). However, and I will repeat, just because I do not agree that the stadium should be built on green belt land does not make me anti York or anti YCFC or worthy of personal abuse - it just means that my priorities in life are different to yours AngryandFrustrated

3:55pm Fri 18 May 12

johnabostock says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches".

Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots.

Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
But has it not been said and there is evidence that racegoers are far worse than football supporters? Ask those that live in Knavesmire what happens to, in and around their front gardens. Why keep quoting football fans all the time and what is your problem regarding football fans, apart from a very small idiotic group in every Club. Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets`.
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]But has it not been said and there is evidence that racegoers are far worse than football supporters? Ask those that live in Knavesmire what happens to, in and around their front gardens. Why keep quoting football fans all the time and what is your problem regarding football fans, apart from a very small idiotic group in every Club. Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets`. johnabostock

3:56pm Fri 18 May 12

PhilipInYork says...

Happy to report that I have it on very good authority that Cllr John Galvin will be investigated for his insulting and thin skinned comments on here.

(And yes, screenshots are great for when they back track and ask for them to removed).
Happy to report that I have it on very good authority that Cllr John Galvin will be investigated for his insulting and thin skinned comments on here. (And yes, screenshots are great for when they back track and ask for them to removed). PhilipInYork

3:57pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

KAT1965 wrote, "Anyone who isn't naive knows that Oakgate are their to make money.

But don't forget, they have done a lot for the redevelopment of the city centre as well (albeit to make money). Swinegate was a blot on the city centre until Oakgate got involved. We can argue till the cows come home on the architectural merits of that area but at least it is popular and vibrant and now a vital link between the more established streets....."


I think you will find that Oakgate didn't build the Swingate development. The site was originally assembled by a consortium including Richard Wood and Kevin Linfoot. They sold it to Prudential (I think) who had the scheme designed and built. Oakgate acquired it when it was partly let and promoted and let the rest. The hard work was done by Wood/Linfoot and Prudential.

It would help if you got your facts right, in future.
[quote] KAT1965 wrote, "Anyone who isn't naive knows that Oakgate are their to make money. But don't forget, they have done a lot for the redevelopment of the city centre as well (albeit to make money). Swinegate was a blot on the city centre until Oakgate got involved. We can argue till the cows come home on the architectural merits of that area but at least it is popular and vibrant and now a vital link between the more established streets....." [/quote] I think you will find that Oakgate didn't build the Swingate development. The site was originally assembled by a consortium including Richard Wood and Kevin Linfoot. They sold it to Prudential (I think) who had the scheme designed and built. Oakgate acquired it when it was partly let and promoted and let the rest. The hard work was done by Wood/Linfoot and Prudential. It would help if you got your facts right, in future. Mr Crabtree

3:57pm Fri 18 May 12

johnabostock says...

Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets` and `loutish behaviour` through drink.
Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets` and `loutish behaviour` through drink. johnabostock

3:58pm Fri 18 May 12

paintitred says...

Micklegate wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever.
'labour initiative'???? It is nearly a decade of Lib Dem work and less than a year of Labour work - at least give the credit/blame where it is due!!
Anothere Leeds fan

eh Paul Lambert
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Of course, conservative councillors weren't voting against this because it was a labour initiative were they? I haven't heard of that ever happening. At all. Ever.[/p][/quote]'labour initiative'???? It is nearly a decade of Lib Dem work and less than a year of Labour work - at least give the credit/blame where it is due!![/p][/quote]Anothere Leeds fan eh Paul Lambert paintitred

3:58pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches".

Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots.

Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
Its not just York who show solidarity to other fans. There are a whole host of clubs who follow the same initiatives. Just because I quoted examples that I was personally involved in, doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.

I think you have a very narrow minded view of football fans. Yes if you take any large gathering of people from a cross section of society you will inevitably get some bad examples.

Anyway. Were not really getting anywhere here. Your initial point was that you stopped going to football matches because the actions of a few spoiled it for the majority (i think that was your words). My point is simply this: I have been to nearly every home game this season, and several away ones, and I can't think of a single instance where the actions of anyone have spoilt it for me, and I can probably vouch for 99% of the crowd there. Perhaps you have delicate sensibilities!!
Last word from me on the topic as we seem to be shouting very similar things at each other!
[quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]Its not just York who show solidarity to other fans. There are a whole host of clubs who follow the same initiatives. Just because I quoted examples that I was personally involved in, doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere. I think you have a very narrow minded view of football fans. Yes if you take any large gathering of people from a cross section of society you will inevitably get some bad examples. Anyway. Were not really getting anywhere here. Your initial point was that you stopped going to football matches because the actions of a few spoiled it for the majority (i think that was your words). My point is simply this: I have been to nearly every home game this season, and several away ones, and I can't think of a single instance where the actions of anyone have spoilt it for me, and I can probably vouch for 99% of the crowd there. Perhaps you have delicate sensibilities!! Last word from me on the topic as we seem to be shouting very similar things at each other! speaks99

3:59pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

I said myself and many others saved the club (which is true) through bucket collections etc. Mr McGill and his family have kept this club alive with their terrific hard work and fantastic support. Its no good scaremongering us with your "when he pulls out" attitude. It doesn't wash, and as per usual you are talking crap. What the **** has Bill Woolley got to do with it this time moron ?
Crabtree I said myself and many others saved the club (which is true) through bucket collections etc. Mr McGill and his family have kept this club alive with their terrific hard work and fantastic support. Its no good scaremongering us with your "when he pulls out" attitude. It doesn't wash, and as per usual you are talking crap. What the **** has Bill Woolley got to do with it this time moron ? walwynwasgod

4:08pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

The Great Buda wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
What aboutRace goers? If you want to tar people with a brush you may as go the whole way.
Racegoers who vomit and p**s in the street are just as loutish -it is fair to say, however, that you don't tend to see riot police at the races whereas it is a relatively common occurance at football matches (no, I don't mean at YCFC but it is virtually every match at LUFC). The races don't tend to breed the tribalism that you get with some sets of football fans.

So to go back to your point - I'll happily tar everyone who thinks it is acceptable behaviour to vomit and p**s in the street when drunk with the same brush!!
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]What aboutRace goers? If you want to tar people with a brush you may as go the whole way.[/p][/quote]Racegoers who vomit and p**s in the street are just as loutish -it is fair to say, however, that you don't tend to see riot police at the races whereas it is a relatively common occurance at football matches (no, I don't mean at YCFC but it is virtually every match at LUFC). The races don't tend to breed the tribalism that you get with some sets of football fans. So to go back to your point - I'll happily tar everyone who thinks it is acceptable behaviour to vomit and p**s in the street when drunk with the same brush!! AngryandFrustrated

4:13pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

johnabostock wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
But has it not been said and there is evidence that racegoers are far worse than football supporters? Ask those that live in Knavesmire what happens to, in and around their front gardens. Why keep quoting football fans all the time and what is your problem regarding football fans, apart from a very small idiotic group in every Club. Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets`.
As I have just posted, race goers that p**s and vomit in the street are just as loutish as football fans who do the same. In case it escaped your attention, the only reason I have been debating football fans is because we have been debating the building of the football stadium, not the moving of York races elsewhere! :-)
[quote][p][bold]johnabostock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]But has it not been said and there is evidence that racegoers are far worse than football supporters? Ask those that live in Knavesmire what happens to, in and around their front gardens. Why keep quoting football fans all the time and what is your problem regarding football fans, apart from a very small idiotic group in every Club. Horse racing has a far worse reputation for `vomiting in the streets`.[/p][/quote]As I have just posted, race goers that p**s and vomit in the street are just as loutish as football fans who do the same. In case it escaped your attention, the only reason I have been debating football fans is because we have been debating the building of the football stadium, not the moving of York races elsewhere! :-) AngryandFrustrated

4:14pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable to vomit and **** in the street. You hear and read about more disturbances regarding racegoers than you do Football violence in the City Centre. I'm sure nightclubbers **** in the street as well. I don't think that is acceptable either.
AngryandFrustrated I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable to vomit and **** in the street. You hear and read about more disturbances regarding racegoers than you do Football violence in the City Centre. I'm sure nightclubbers **** in the street as well. I don't think that is acceptable either. walwynwasgod

4:18pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

speaks99 wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
speaks99 wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?
Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).
Its not just York who show solidarity to other fans. There are a whole host of clubs who follow the same initiatives. Just because I quoted examples that I was personally involved in, doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere. I think you have a very narrow minded view of football fans. Yes if you take any large gathering of people from a cross section of society you will inevitably get some bad examples. Anyway. Were not really getting anywhere here. Your initial point was that you stopped going to football matches because the actions of a few spoiled it for the majority (i think that was your words). My point is simply this: I have been to nearly every home game this season, and several away ones, and I can't think of a single instance where the actions of anyone have spoilt it for me, and I can probably vouch for 99% of the crowd there. Perhaps you have delicate sensibilities!! Last word from me on the topic as we seem to be shouting very similar things at each other!
Enjoy Sunday and try not to be a lout on the train!!! LOL!!! :-)

Good luck to YCFC on Sunday
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngryandFrustrated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Nope there is occasional bad behaviour, maybe once or twice a season (if that). Bad language is unfortunately the norm, but it is so much part of our society these days. If you are as much as a supporter as you say you are, then why try and make football fans into something they are not. Were you at Darlington when a thousand or more York fans held up posters with messages of support on them? Were you at Bootham Crescent when we have had countless bucket collections for struggling teams up and down the country? Does that sound like "loutish behaviour" to you?[/p][/quote]Which bit of "However, I was not referring to the YCFC fans specifically" did you not read or understand? And please don't insult the intelligence of me or others on this site by trying to make out that there is never any trouble at any football ground or there is never any trouble at matches involving York City. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many police on match days, nor would places like the Minster Inn need to put a bouncer on the door for "big matches". Let me make my position clear - the vast majority of football fans are well behaved decent people who on occasion do good deeds (akin the the countless bucket collections you refer to). However, every league club has a proportion of idiots that create trouble and YCFC is no different - the YCFC proportion may be small because the crowds are smaller than say at LUFC, but there are idiots. Oh, and for the record, pi**ed up teenagers vomiting in the street having drunk to much before the game, is, in my book, loutish behaviour! (And yes that also includes the non football fans who do exactly the same on a Saturday night!).[/p][/quote]Its not just York who show solidarity to other fans. There are a whole host of clubs who follow the same initiatives. Just because I quoted examples that I was personally involved in, doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere. I think you have a very narrow minded view of football fans. Yes if you take any large gathering of people from a cross section of society you will inevitably get some bad examples. Anyway. Were not really getting anywhere here. Your initial point was that you stopped going to football matches because the actions of a few spoiled it for the majority (i think that was your words). My point is simply this: I have been to nearly every home game this season, and several away ones, and I can't think of a single instance where the actions of anyone have spoilt it for me, and I can probably vouch for 99% of the crowd there. Perhaps you have delicate sensibilities!! Last word from me on the topic as we seem to be shouting very similar things at each other![/p][/quote]Enjoy Sunday and try not to be a lout on the train!!! LOL!!! :-) Good luck to YCFC on Sunday AngryandFrustrated

4:20pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Thats more like it !

Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers
AngryandFrustrated Thats more like it ! Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers walwynwasgod

4:21pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr C. You must lead a lonely existence... You are ignored for boring us to death about planning policies, you are mocked because you continue to spout the same rubbish and yet you continue to come back here time and time again. Got to admire your convictions I guess...
I have many varied interests, and lots of friends from many different walks of life. If I did consider to become totally obsessed with one thing, like a football club for instance, I only need remember the blinkered, partisan, misinformed opinions of those who have attacked me on this thread, to realise how boring and one-dimensional I would have to become to be like you. No thanks, I'll stay where I am, but, I will continue to expose the Council when, like yesterday, they step out of line and break their own policies and the laws of the land.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Mr C. You must lead a lonely existence... You are ignored for boring us to death about planning policies, you are mocked because you continue to spout the same rubbish and yet you continue to come back here time and time again. Got to admire your convictions I guess...[/p][/quote]I have many varied interests, and lots of friends from many different walks of life. If I did consider to become totally obsessed with one thing, like a football club for instance, I only need remember the blinkered, partisan, misinformed opinions of those who have attacked me on this thread, to realise how boring and one-dimensional I would have to become to be like you. No thanks, I'll stay where I am, but, I will continue to expose the Council when, like yesterday, they step out of line and break their own policies and the laws of the land. Mr Crabtree

4:23pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable to vomit and **** in the street. You hear and read about more disturbances regarding racegoers than you do Football violence in the City Centre. I'm sure nightclubbers **** in the street as well. I don't think that is acceptable either.
I need a lie down - twice in an afternoon we agree on something!!!

Enjoy Sunday :-)
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable to vomit and **** in the street. You hear and read about more disturbances regarding racegoers than you do Football violence in the City Centre. I'm sure nightclubbers **** in the street as well. I don't think that is acceptable either.[/p][/quote]I need a lie down - twice in an afternoon we agree on something!!! Enjoy Sunday :-) AngryandFrustrated

4:25pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

Stick to the only thing you're "good" at !
Crabtree Stick to the only thing you're "good" at ! walwynwasgod

4:26pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

angryandfrustrated:

Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains!

Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!))

:o)
angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o) speaks99

4:28pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Thats more like it ! Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers
Be safe and don't let the Luton louts get you!!!
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thats more like it ! Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers[/p][/quote]Be safe and don't let the Luton louts get you!!! AngryandFrustrated

4:29pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Speaks99

I echo your statement ! (until Crabtree pipes up again !)
Speaks99 I echo your statement ! (until Crabtree pipes up again !) walwynwasgod

4:29pm Fri 18 May 12

dsom73 says...

You're all wrong.

Sorry, just got into the habit...
You're all wrong. Sorry, just got into the habit... dsom73

4:31pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

AngryandFrustrated

Think we might recognise them this time (at least we'll have more money to pick up this time !)
AngryandFrustrated Think we might recognise them this time (at least we'll have more money to pick up this time !) walwynwasgod

4:35pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree You're the sort of person that would go on a killing spree in McDonalds (probably after taking Bill Woolley hostage !).
You've crossed the line with that stupid remark, and shown what a total moron you really are.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree You're the sort of person that would go on a killing spree in McDonalds (probably after taking Bill Woolley hostage !).[/p][/quote]You've crossed the line with that stupid remark, and shown what a total moron you really are. Mr Crabtree

4:35pm Fri 18 May 12

TheTruthHurts says...

speaks99 wrote:
angryandfrustrated:

Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains!

Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!))

:o)
Embarrassing and cringeworthy. read back through your posts and you come across like a very pleasant person indeed. I'm glad the posts will stay up for all to see! That would apply to speaks99 to. If you start at the top and read through you both come across like people who have some sort of multiple personality disorder.
'
For all it can be irritating at least crabtree is consistent!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o)[/p][/quote]Embarrassing and cringeworthy. read back through your posts and you come across like a very pleasant person indeed. I'm glad the posts will stay up for all to see! That would apply to speaks99 to. If you start at the top and read through you both come across like people who have some sort of multiple personality disorder. ' For all it can be irritating at least crabtree is consistent! TheTruthHurts

4:40pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC
Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.
Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.
You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.
How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles !
I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.
Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward. IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES ! Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ? 'YES' they have !
How can I put this any more simply than I already have done. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to your initial comment about bribery with an ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. One day I would be fascinated to listen you rant on and on about local planning policies, but today, my friend, is not that day.
The main thrust of my comment and of my argument is not complying with policies rules, laws, ethics and standards.

THE COUNCIL BROKE THEM !

Now find examples where this has been done and successful, which will ENABLE you to prove to Eric Pickles that CoYC have not done anything wrong !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: The Labour Council sends out a clear message.... FOR SALE: Planning Permissions; All reasonable bribes and bungs accepted. Terms and Conditions do not apply - we make and break the rules. CoYC[/p][/quote]Don't build this into something it isn't. Oakgate offered something the council wanted, but if this is a bribe or a bung, then its one that goes on in every council up and down the country. Its an enabling development, a cost effective way of getting the private sector to pay for community assets. If you don't like it tough, but to call it a bung is making you look a complete baffoon.[/p][/quote]Oh, so it isn't a bending of the rules ? How do YOU explain the Chief Planning Officer not making a recommendation ? This decision went against the Core Strategy - which the Council have wasted the last eight years developing. If that isn't a complete travesty, what is ? You are trying to justify the injustice that CoYC have committed. It simply won't wash, and the Secretary of State will have the final word. You won the first leg, that's all. It isn't over by a long chalk.[/p][/quote]You started talking about bribes and bungs. I'm simply stating that every council up and down the country are using enabling developments. You are so far behind in this argument you might as well give it up.[/p][/quote]How many went against their opwn Core Strategy ? How many were not supported by a Planning Officers recommendation? How many failed the sequential test for sustainability ? How many did not comply with the NPPF ? Simply stating in general terms is not good enough. Be specific. Unless you can quote numerous identical situations where so many rules were broken, you have lost the argument. You don't need to convince me to give up, try telling Eric Pickles ![/p][/quote]I'm being very specific. I'm replying to you accusation of bribes and bungs (which you haven't substantiated with any evidence by the way). I'll say it once more and then I'm through. ITS CALLED AN ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you and good night.[/p][/quote]Go on, do your usual trick - change the subject, avoid the question and slink off like a coward. IT'S CALLED IGNORING THE RULES ! Now, go and find the evidence to support your argument. Eric Pickles will already be asking civil servants for the facts - have CoYC overstepped the mark on this ? 'YES' they have ![/p][/quote]How can I put this any more simply than I already have done. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to your initial comment about bribery with an ENABLING DEVELOPMENT. One day I would be fascinated to listen you rant on and on about local planning policies, but today, my friend, is not that day.[/p][/quote]The main thrust of my comment and of my argument is not complying with policies rules, laws, ethics and standards. THE COUNCIL BROKE THEM ! Now find examples where this has been done and successful, which will ENABLE you to prove to Eric Pickles that CoYC have not done anything wrong ! Mr Crabtree

4:44pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

The Truth Hurts

I think we're all friends now. As for Crabtree, perhaps you can explain what his unhealthy obsession with Bill Woolley is ?
The Truth Hurts I think we're all friends now. As for Crabtree, perhaps you can explain what his unhealthy obsession with Bill Woolley is ? walwynwasgod

4:47pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote: Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:- Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ? He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ?
My dad was 55 when he retired. Some people work hard all their life and then choose to retire early. I am throwing money into my pension like its going out of fashion because I too hold that aspiration. Some fortunate people plan ahead for the future and financially are able to enjoy their retirement whilst they are fit and able to do so. But never mind that. Why be reasonable when you can hide behind a computer screen and throw mud at a local councillor?
You really are an amateur spin doctor aren't you ?

So just let me get this straight. At what should be the epitome of his 16-year career at CoYC, Bill Woolley quits before his two biggest deals reach their fruition - what am I missing ?

The two deals I am referring to are:-

1. The Core Strategy
2. The Community Stadium

One has been sunk by the other and I wonder if BW is leaving a sinking ship..... like rats do !

BTW, he is not a councillor, he's an officer - a very well paid officer on £106,000 a year !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: Woolley is the architect of this, so all you supporters answer this simple question:- Why did he announce a couple of months ago that he is retiring in the summer ? He is only 60, and is leaving before the ink is dry on the planning consent, before the outcome of the LDF and before the Secretary of State has had his say. Why isn't he seeing the job through ?[/p][/quote]My dad was 55 when he retired. Some people work hard all their life and then choose to retire early. I am throwing money into my pension like its going out of fashion because I too hold that aspiration. Some fortunate people plan ahead for the future and financially are able to enjoy their retirement whilst they are fit and able to do so. But never mind that. Why be reasonable when you can hide behind a computer screen and throw mud at a local councillor?[/p][/quote]You really are an amateur spin doctor aren't you ? So just let me get this straight. At what should be the epitome of his 16-year career at CoYC, Bill Woolley quits before his two biggest deals reach their fruition - what am I missing ? The two deals I am referring to are:- 1. The Core Strategy 2. The Community Stadium One has been sunk by the other and I wonder if BW is leaving a sinking ship..... like rats do ! BTW, he is not a councillor, he's an officer - a very well paid officer on £106,000 a year ! Mr Crabtree

4:49pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

Who cares about Fat **** Pickles !
Crabtree Who cares about Fat **** Pickles ! walwynwasgod

4:52pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
If i here Woolley's name once more, i'll probably go on a killing spree myself. Crabtree, he probably took early retirement because he will get a nice fat pension (like most of them do). He is no different to Galvin and the others who voted yesterday. There were no bungs, bribes or anything. Face it man, the vote went ahead because this is what the people of York wanted. I spent time handing out leaflets in the City Centre and almost everyone i spoke to was in favour of the development. Get it in to your head that most Councillors do the job for the money. The labour lot voted Yes, the Tories, No along with Swampy. Simple really.
No different to the others - why, who else is taking the money and doing a runner ?

Simple ? Yes, some people clearly are !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: If i here Woolley's name once more, i'll probably go on a killing spree myself. Crabtree, he probably took early retirement because he will get a nice fat pension (like most of them do). He is no different to Galvin and the others who voted yesterday. There were no bungs, bribes or anything. Face it man, the vote went ahead because this is what the people of York wanted. I spent time handing out leaflets in the City Centre and almost everyone i spoke to was in favour of the development. Get it in to your head that most Councillors do the job for the money. The labour lot voted Yes, the Tories, No along with Swampy. Simple really.[/p][/quote]No different to the others - why, who else is taking the money and doing a runner ? Simple ? Yes, some people clearly are ! Mr Crabtree

4:54pm Fri 18 May 12

walwynwasgod says...

Crabtree

You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger.
Crabtree You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger. walwynwasgod

4:55pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree Who cares about Fat **** Pickles !
You really are a piece of work.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree Who cares about Fat **** Pickles ![/p][/quote]You really are a piece of work. Mr Crabtree

5:05pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

speaks99 wrote:
angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o)
Bar prices on the trains - I'd be chilling a 4 pack from a well know supermarket (who may or may not be based at Monks Cross!!) to sup on the way down (or is it a special football train where alcohol is banned?)

Sorry too if things were heated -and I truly hope that you have a successful trip!
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o)[/p][/quote]Bar prices on the trains - I'd be chilling a 4 pack from a well know supermarket (who may or may not be based at Monks Cross!!) to sup on the way down (or is it a special football train where alcohol is banned?) Sorry too if things were heated -and I truly hope that you have a successful trip! AngryandFrustrated

5:06pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
AngryandFrustrated Thats more like it ! Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers
Supervise what exactly ?
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: AngryandFrustrated Thats more like it ! Thank you for the support. I'm hoping to now supervise 105 bodies down to Wembley and back. Cheers[/p][/quote]Supervise what exactly ? Mr Crabtree

5:10pm Fri 18 May 12

Bobmbmd says...

At last York makes a good decision, the City needs to grow and service it's residents. The city centre could not cope with these huge stores in it and it's parking, already the most expensive in Yorkshire would be overwhelmed. The right site the right shops and the right approval, thank you York.
At last York makes a good decision, the City needs to grow and service it's residents. The city centre could not cope with these huge stores in it and it's parking, already the most expensive in Yorkshire would be overwhelmed. The right site the right shops and the right approval, thank you York. Bobmbmd

5:12pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree

You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger.
^^This^^

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to have a snifter or two at the pub.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger.[/p][/quote]^^This^^ Now if you don't mind, I'm going to have a snifter or two at the pub. speaks99

5:13pm Fri 18 May 12

long distance depressive says...

lezyork1966 wrote:
finally its done, more out of town shopping with good parking, some new sports facilities and what about the city centre, do tell me ....
Possibly no change!!?? Get over it and just carry on shopping at Baritts.
[quote][p][bold]lezyork1966[/bold] wrote: finally its done, more out of town shopping with good parking, some new sports facilities and what about the city centre, do tell me ....[/p][/quote]Possibly no change!!?? Get over it and just carry on shopping at Baritts. long distance depressive

5:13pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

If an enquiry is ordered I assure you, that the Planning tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more.

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;
Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi

.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
If an enquiry is ordered I assure you, that the Planning tribunal Chairman and the barristers appearing will certainly give a hoot and more. If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

5:20pm Fri 18 May 12

blonde bombshell says...

honestworker wrote:
this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town.

The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!!
To be honest I'm shocked at the selfish and "me me me" attitude of some of the city centre stores.
They seem to be of the opinion that everyone should shop and spend money in their shops and nowhere else !
Believe it or not there is such a thing as choice, and I will spend my money where I choose, whether thats at MX, York centre or wherever.
Blaming MX 2 for slow trade when its not even built yet is laughable.
While we are at it lets ban the internet so everybody should shop in the centre of York and not online, after all its the York centre traders that matter in their opinion.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town. The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!![/p][/quote]To be honest I'm shocked at the selfish and "me me me" attitude of some of the city centre stores. They seem to be of the opinion that everyone should shop and spend money in their shops and nowhere else ! Believe it or not there is such a thing as choice, and I will spend my money where I choose, whether thats at MX, York centre or wherever. Blaming MX 2 for slow trade when its not even built yet is laughable. While we are at it lets ban the internet so everybody should shop in the centre of York and not online, after all its the York centre traders that matter in their opinion. blonde bombshell

5:20pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
The Truth Hurts I think we're all friends now. As for Crabtree, perhaps you can explain what his unhealthy obsession with Bill Woolley is ?
You just don't realise the power this man has had over York policies, and how he has allowed his officers to mislead and hoodwink most councillors on key policies. Someone, I think it was TheTruthHurts ? said I was irritating but consistent. Woolley is irritating because for years he was consistent in allowing certain policies to be protected and sheltered whilst they were causing massive damage to York's economy, only then to throw all of his loyalties to policy out of the window and go against the LDF which he has overseen for eight years.
The man is a fraud, and his early-retirement is yet more of the cowardice shown by his officers, in that he is not hanging about to face the music and mayhem this will cause. He has upset many councillors with his half-truths and misleading ways, but, not one has the backbone to speak out. Cowards to a man, including Alexander and Merrett !

I will not be bullied into silence, and I WILL BE VINDICATED !
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: The Truth Hurts I think we're all friends now. As for Crabtree, perhaps you can explain what his unhealthy obsession with Bill Woolley is ?[/p][/quote]You just don't realise the power this man has had over York policies, and how he has allowed his officers to mislead and hoodwink most councillors on key policies. Someone, I think it was TheTruthHurts ? said I was irritating but consistent. Woolley is irritating because for years he was consistent in allowing certain policies to be protected and sheltered whilst they were causing massive damage to York's economy, only then to throw all of his loyalties to policy out of the window and go against the LDF which he has overseen for eight years. The man is a fraud, and his early-retirement is yet more of the cowardice shown by his officers, in that he is not hanging about to face the music and mayhem this will cause. He has upset many councillors with his half-truths and misleading ways, but, not one has the backbone to speak out. Cowards to a man, including Alexander and Merrett ! I will not be bullied into silence, and I WILL BE VINDICATED ! Mr Crabtree

5:28pm Fri 18 May 12

AngryandFrustrated says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
speaks99 wrote: angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o)
Embarrassing and cringeworthy. read back through your posts and you come across like a very pleasant person indeed. I'm glad the posts will stay up for all to see! That would apply to speaks99 to. If you start at the top and read through you both come across like people who have some sort of multiple personality disorder. ' For all it can be irritating at least crabtree is consistent!
Troll.

Heated debate that ends up with a (written) handshake is in my world a good thing. Posts that contain personal insults, such as yours (regarding the multiple personality disorder) are nothing short of trolling.

I consider that my posts have been consistent all day long and to be blunt, if you don't like them, keep your finger on the down arrow and don't read them!
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: angryandfrustrated: Chance would be a fine thing - have you seen the bar prices on these trains! Sorry if things got a bit heated. We're all clearly passionate about what we believe in, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a thriving York (whether or not you agree with the development) and a thriving YCFC (except for a few trolls (and Leeds fans...Booo!)) :o)[/p][/quote]Embarrassing and cringeworthy. read back through your posts and you come across like a very pleasant person indeed. I'm glad the posts will stay up for all to see! That would apply to speaks99 to. If you start at the top and read through you both come across like people who have some sort of multiple personality disorder. ' For all it can be irritating at least crabtree is consistent![/p][/quote]Troll. Heated debate that ends up with a (written) handshake is in my world a good thing. Posts that contain personal insults, such as yours (regarding the multiple personality disorder) are nothing short of trolling. I consider that my posts have been consistent all day long and to be blunt, if you don't like them, keep your finger on the down arrow and don't read them! AngryandFrustrated

5:38pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

walwynwasgod wrote:
Crabtree You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger.
I'm sorry, but again, you have gone too far.

By all means, correct me with facts, if you can be bothered to do the research. Do not however, stoop to the levels of accusing me of being a total crank. You have suggested already that I am some sort of Anders Baring-Brevik type character, and this is not acceptable. It is not funny, and I will not engage in any more exchanges with you because of your rude and insulting behaviour. I do have an axe to grind, and ocassionally get over-emotional and say things that I regret, but, there are limits for heavens sake.
[quote][p][bold]walwynwasgod[/bold] wrote: Crabtree You have, and i repeat a rather unhealthy obsession with Woolley and Pickles. If i was Bill Woolley i would be asking for 24 hour Police protection. I bet you have newspaper cuttings all over the wall and tape recordings from Radio York. Someone said yesterday that "The life and times of Bill Woolley" would be your speciallist subject on Mastermind. Let Bill have a happy retirement with his thousands, and i suggest you get help as soon as possible. The people of York are in danger.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but again, you have gone too far. By all means, correct me with facts, if you can be bothered to do the research. Do not however, stoop to the levels of accusing me of being a total crank. You have suggested already that I am some sort of Anders Baring-Brevik type character, and this is not acceptable. It is not funny, and I will not engage in any more exchanges with you because of your rude and insulting behaviour. I do have an axe to grind, and ocassionally get over-emotional and say things that I regret, but, there are limits for heavens sake. Mr Crabtree

5:53pm Fri 18 May 12

allijew says...

Whoopee does this mean we will be getting a ''Giant Tesco'' in Bootham Crescent!
Whoopee does this mean we will be getting a ''Giant Tesco'' in Bootham Crescent! allijew

6:01pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
[quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way. swh1963

6:03pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

And great to agree with an optimistic Duffy!!
And great to agree with an optimistic Duffy!! swh1963

6:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-) Even AndyD

7:27pm Fri 18 May 12

bolero says...

It was interesting on visiting The Designer Outlet today that a survey of visitors was being conducted. The core of the survey seemed to be whether visitors would like to see more of the better known High Street shops at the outlet rather than `discount` stores thereby giving a greater choice of goods on offer. Now read what you like into this but it's very interesting, isn't it Mr Sinclair? And we don't need any comments from Mr Crabtree please, we've had enough of his drivel to last a lifetime thank you.
It was interesting on visiting The Designer Outlet today that a survey of visitors was being conducted. The core of the survey seemed to be whether visitors would like to see more of the better known High Street shops at the outlet rather than `discount` stores thereby giving a greater choice of goods on offer. Now read what you like into this but it's very interesting, isn't it Mr Sinclair? And we don't need any comments from Mr Crabtree please, we've had enough of his drivel to last a lifetime thank you. bolero

7:29pm Fri 18 May 12

bolero says...

Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away. bolero

8:16pm Fri 18 May 12

particleman says...

Haven't been in town for a while, but I'll be devastated if Leak And Thorp shuts as a result of all this....
Haven't been in town for a while, but I'll be devastated if Leak And Thorp shuts as a result of all this.... particleman

8:30pm Fri 18 May 12

yorkonafork says...

Just listening to yesterday's Radio York before the decision and it's great to hear that the majority of people of York have a bit of local pride and have an ounce of intelligence. For 30 minutes just 'yes' vote after 'yes' vote..the odd ill informed statement in between but it fills you with pride that the clear majority haven't been swayed but such clear scarmongering and everyone is behind this development.

Well done people of York!
Just listening to yesterday's Radio York before the decision and it's great to hear that the majority of people of York have a bit of local pride and have an ounce of intelligence. For 30 minutes just 'yes' vote after 'yes' vote..the odd ill informed statement in between but it fills you with pride that the clear majority haven't been swayed but such clear scarmongering and everyone is behind this development. Well done people of York! yorkonafork

8:31pm Fri 18 May 12

yorkonafork says...

by such*
by such* yorkonafork

8:32pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi


.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

8:37pm Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me. Even AndyD

8:39pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi



.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you? swh1963

8:43pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi




.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils.

Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses! speaks99

9:01pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not. Mr Crabtree

9:07pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do.
Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do. Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative. swh1963

9:10pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Even AndyD wrote:
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs.

Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe.

'Unjustly under fire' my a*se !
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.[/p][/quote]He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs. Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe. 'Unjustly under fire' my a*se ! Mr Crabtree

9:17pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do.
Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.
No, not the decision.

The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision.

Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one !
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do. Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.[/p][/quote]No, not the decision. The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision. Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one ! Mr Crabtree

9:19pm Fri 18 May 12

bert17 says...

Excellent news for the city. Both sports teams are in need of a new home and i am so glad to hear these plans have been approved. I do believe the loss of business argument was completely exaggerated. I believe both town and monks cross have their advantages and disadvantages, and don't believe this development will affect business in the slightest. Town is still going to get the large tourist boost and i can't see that changing.
Excellent news for the city. Both sports teams are in need of a new home and i am so glad to hear these plans have been approved. I do believe the loss of business argument was completely exaggerated. I believe both town and monks cross have their advantages and disadvantages, and don't believe this development will affect business in the slightest. Town is still going to get the large tourist boost and i can't see that changing. bert17

9:23pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do.
Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.
No, not the decision.

The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision.

Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one !
You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do. Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.[/p][/quote]No, not the decision. The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision. Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one ![/p][/quote]You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium? swh1963

9:24pm Fri 18 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

And here are the ctrl-f results so far:

Crabtree: 89
speaks99: 67
AngryandFrustrated: 67
walwynwasgod: 65
Even AndyD:29
And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29 Buzz Light-year

9:31pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do.
Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.
No, not the decision.

The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision.

Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one !
You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium?
But when the right thing is the wrong thing, regardless of wrong place or right place, you have to say the right wrong thing is to wrongly right the right. Right?
[quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do. Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.[/p][/quote]No, not the decision. The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision. Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one ![/p][/quote]You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium?[/p][/quote]But when the right thing is the wrong thing, regardless of wrong place or right place, you have to say the right wrong thing is to wrongly right the right. Right? speaks99

9:36pm Fri 18 May 12

bolero says...

Are these ages or IQs?
Are these ages or IQs? bolero

9:43pm Fri 18 May 12

swh1963 says...

speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do.
Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.
No, not the decision.

The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision.

Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one !
You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium?
But when the right thing is the wrong thing, regardless of wrong place or right place, you have to say the right wrong thing is to wrongly right the right. Right?
remind me which side you are on? It's quite simple really. The right thing has been done (arguably) in the wrong way.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with you when you say the decision was 'the right thing' to do. Where we part company is your side issue obsession that it was done 'in the wrong place' (when there is no other place in which do the right thing) and 'in the wrong way' when doing the wrong thing in the right way was the only alternative.[/p][/quote]No, not the decision. The right thing is a stadium. It's he wrong place and the wrong decision. Two wrongs don't make it right, neither do all the other wrongs which outnumber the right ones by at least ten to one ![/p][/quote]You're going to have to help me out here, me being a thick football fan (or is it 'pseudo intellectual' I dunno): 'the right thing is a stadium' but it's in 'the wrong place'. But there is no alternative place, so surely you go ahead and do the right thing in a, shall we say, 'less than ideal' place, rather than do the wrong thing, which is not to build a stadium?[/p][/quote]But when the right thing is the wrong thing, regardless of wrong place or right place, you have to say the right wrong thing is to wrongly right the right. Right?[/p][/quote]remind me which side you are on? It's quite simple really. The right thing has been done (arguably) in the wrong way. swh1963

9:54pm Fri 18 May 12

Even AndyD says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs.

Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe.

'Unjustly under fire' my a*se !
Crank? :-(

You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest.

Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog.

Come on City - one last push! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.[/p][/quote]He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs. Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe. 'Unjustly under fire' my a*se ![/p][/quote]Crank? :-( You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest. Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog. Come on City - one last push! ;-) Even AndyD

9:57pm Fri 18 May 12

speaks99 says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs.

Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe.

'Unjustly under fire' my a*se !
Crank? :-(

You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest.

Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog.

Come on City - one last push! ;-)
Would say Hello - have long wanted to put a face to the name, but I'm on the second tier so probably wont get the opportunity. Enjoy your day, hope your daughter has a great day too (and Mrs AndyD of course!!)
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.[/p][/quote]He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs. Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe. 'Unjustly under fire' my a*se ![/p][/quote]Crank? :-( You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest. Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog. Come on City - one last push! ;-)[/p][/quote]Would say Hello - have long wanted to put a face to the name, but I'm on the second tier so probably wont get the opportunity. Enjoy your day, hope your daughter has a great day too (and Mrs AndyD of course!!) speaks99

10:40pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

bolero wrote:
Are these ages or IQs?
I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :)

I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen !
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Are these ages or IQs?[/p][/quote]I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :) I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen ! Mr Crabtree

10:56pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Are these ages or IQs?
I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :)

I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen !
You think this is "footy fans" against the rest?

I'm sure the 400+ residents of this City who can look forward to having a job, and chance to provide for their futures and their families will thank you for your smear's.

I'm glad I do not know you.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Are these ages or IQs?[/p][/quote]I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :) I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen ![/p][/quote]You think this is "footy fans" against the rest? I'm sure the 400+ residents of this City who can look forward to having a job, and chance to provide for their futures and their families will thank you for your smear's. I'm glad I do not know you. The Great Buda

10:56pm Fri 18 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs.

Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe.

'Unjustly under fire' my a*se !
Crank? :-(

You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest.

Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog.

Come on City - one last push! ;-)
Your problem is that you have a dig by slipping them in mid-post, then end all chummy, as though you are whiter than white. That's what I find cranky. It's subtle, but, it's there. Here's an example:-

"As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant. "
It's this hollier than thou attitude. At least with 'walwyn' you know when he's having a go, but, with you, it's like a sniper taking pot shots hiding behind everyone else's insults, like a saint ? The 'westie toy dog' bit is like David Cameron playing badminton in his garden to prove he's just like us, it's all a bit pretentious. You are not always the nice guy you pretend to be.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.[/p][/quote]He doesn't want either, because your a crank like your patner in spin, deception and put downs. Do us all a favour and don't take your i-pad with you at the weekend, and give us all a rest from your tripe. 'Unjustly under fire' my a*se ![/p][/quote]Crank? :-( You know, I genuinely think you know your stuff, Mr C. But you need to lose the insults and hyperbole. Coward, crank, disgrace, traitor etc. Just argue your point, you have plenty to say without the rest. Good luck City for Sunday - we are staying overnight, so I'm outa here. No - I don't have an i-pad, Mr C. Block 103, row 37 if anyone wants to say hi. I'm the one looking terrified with a flag, daughter is the one with a much loved westie toy dog. Come on City - one last push! ;-)[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you have a dig by slipping them in mid-post, then end all chummy, as though you are whiter than white. That's what I find cranky. It's subtle, but, it's there. Here's an example:- [quote] "As for these forums, there have been unfortunate words on both sides, but heavens, I don't think anyone can say the anti-stadium camp have been innocent. I'd say certain individuals have been downright unpleasant. " [/quote] It's this hollier than thou attitude. At least with 'walwyn' you know when he's having a go, but, with you, it's like a sniper taking pot shots hiding behind everyone else's insults, like a saint ? The 'westie toy dog' bit is like David Cameron playing badminton in his garden to prove he's just like us, it's all a bit pretentious. You are not always the nice guy you pretend to be. Mr Crabtree

11:03pm Fri 18 May 12

sharpish says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
I almost always agree with your posts Mr C!

I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted.

Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it!

Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City! sharpish

11:14pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

sharpish wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
I almost always agree with your posts Mr C!

I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted.

Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it!

Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City!
Thanks for adding that Mrs Galvin. Thankfully screenshots have been taken of the awful words your husband said about the people of this City.
[quote][p][bold]sharpish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City![/p][/quote]Thanks for adding that Mrs Galvin. Thankfully screenshots have been taken of the awful words your husband said about the people of this City. The Great Buda

11:27pm Fri 18 May 12

sharpish says...

The Great Buda wrote:
sharpish wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote:
Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
I almost always agree with your posts Mr C!

I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted.

Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it!

Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City!
Thanks for adding that Mrs Galvin. Thankfully screenshots have been taken of the awful words your husband said about the people of this City.
Please enlighten me then? I saw a couple of posts which were not offensive at all.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sharpish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City![/p][/quote]Thanks for adding that Mrs Galvin. Thankfully screenshots have been taken of the awful words your husband said about the people of this City.[/p][/quote]Please enlighten me then? I saw a couple of posts which were not offensive at all. sharpish

11:34pm Fri 18 May 12

The Great Buda says...

That because the Press (thankfully) deleted the worst of them. The only one remaining is his rather half-hearted attempt at an apology.
That because the Press (thankfully) deleted the worst of them. The only one remaining is his rather half-hearted attempt at an apology. The Great Buda

11:39pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

Even AndyD wrote:
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either.
Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.
you are a coward because, with your fellow YCFC you twist truth, mislead, insult , and denigrate people like Sinclair and Brown whilst wearing the cowardly cloak of anonimity and I do know you, I have met many people like you,

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi





.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke, Pete- hence the smiley thing. Not sure why I'm cowardly, but there we go. Pseudo - hmm, don't think I'm that either. Were you the chap who was accusing YCFC fans of throwing insults about? I'm a York fan and I'm the one who feels unjustly under fire here. Attack what I say if you wish, but not me the person. You don't know me.[/p][/quote]you are a coward because, with your fellow YCFC you twist truth, mislead, insult , and denigrate people like Sinclair and Brown whilst wearing the cowardly cloak of anonimity and I do know you, I have met many people like you, If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

11:52pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi





.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils.

Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out!

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi





.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

11:54pm Fri 18 May 12

peterstreet says...

speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi





.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils.

Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out!

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi





.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

12:07am Sat 19 May 12

The Great Buda says...

peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote:
As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies.

Will your Football club be contributing may I ask?

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi






.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils.

Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out!

If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the;

Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi






.gov.uk

State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism? The Great Buda

12:28am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ?

I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:-

Walwynwasgod : 39
Mr Crabtree : 26
Speaks99 : 22
Angry&Frustrated : 20
AndyD : 8

So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is.

Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts.

You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds. Mr Crabtree

12:30am Sat 19 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ?

I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:-

Walwynwasgod : 39
Mr Crabtree : 26
Speaks99 : 22
Angry&Frustrated : 20
AndyD : 8

So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is.

Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts.

You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.[/p][/quote]I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted? The Great Buda

12:59am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote: Are these ages or IQs?
I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :) I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen !
You think this is "footy fans" against the rest? I'm sure the 400+ residents of this City who can look forward to having a job, and chance to provide for their futures and their families will thank you for your smear's. I'm glad I do not know you.
Oh please do keep up, it's YCFC fans who have been giving me grief and I used it as a collective noun, not necessarily a label to exclude all others.

Do you realise how silly your remark is ? How do the 400+ residents know that they have got the jobs at this stage. It's like saying I'm insulting unborn babies who might get a job there - nobody knows who they are yet. I dare say there will be some who will get jobs there who don't want a stadium or a JL, but will gladly work there. I might be one of them as my industry - housebuilding - has had me sat on my arse doing more silly blogging than building for the last four years ! Before you ask, or accuse, I am not claiming, and have never claimed any benefits for my entire working life. I have worked hard and saved hard and had to use my life savings to live during any periods of hardship. The last four years have been the longest and worst ever, with my average earnings being reduced by 85%. In 2010 I earned less than £5,000 for the whole year. Don't lecture me on the future of others, I know only too well how bad things are and have not had a holiday for four years.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Are these ages or IQs?[/p][/quote]I'm just impressed at Buzz's numeracy skills. Bet the footy fans will be in awe too :) I'm up to 90 now. Another 10 and I'll get a letter of congratulations from the Queen ![/p][/quote]You think this is "footy fans" against the rest? I'm sure the 400+ residents of this City who can look forward to having a job, and chance to provide for their futures and their families will thank you for your smear's. I'm glad I do not know you.[/p][/quote]Oh please do keep up, it's YCFC fans who have been giving me grief and I used it as a collective noun, not necessarily a label to exclude all others. Do you realise how silly your remark is ? How do the 400+ residents know that they have got the jobs at this stage. It's like saying I'm insulting unborn babies who might get a job there - nobody knows who they are yet. I dare say there will be some who will get jobs there who don't want a stadium or a JL, but will gladly work there. I might be one of them as my industry - housebuilding - has had me sat on my arse doing more silly blogging than building for the last four years ! Before you ask, or accuse, I am not claiming, and have never claimed any benefits for my entire working life. I have worked hard and saved hard and had to use my life savings to live during any periods of hardship. The last four years have been the longest and worst ever, with my average earnings being reduced by 85%. In 2010 I earned less than £5,000 for the whole year. Don't lecture me on the future of others, I know only too well how bad things are and have not had a holiday for four years. Mr Crabtree

1:16am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

sharpish wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City!
Sharpish

You have rescued my sanity, as the barrage of posters wrongly labelling me as some sort of obsessive imbecile had taken it's toll. I thank you for your support, and for recognising that I have made valid and substantive arguments based on factual evidence, not speculation and misinformation.

I also realise that you speak from a position of knowledge and experience, but, you are not Mrs Galvin as someone has wrongly speculated.

One of the most worrying and serious misdeameanours of some councillors and senior officers is the political hoodwinking that has gone on during this process, which is an absolute disgrace. In any other walk of life, these people would be facing criminal charges for fraud and perverting the course of justice - they make Rebekah Brooks allegations look insignificant by comparison.
[quote][p][bold]sharpish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City![/p][/quote]Sharpish You have rescued my sanity, as the barrage of posters wrongly labelling me as some sort of obsessive imbecile had taken it's toll. I thank you for your support, and for recognising that I have made valid and substantive arguments based on factual evidence, not speculation and misinformation. I also realise that you speak from a position of knowledge and experience, but, you are not Mrs Galvin as someone has wrongly speculated. One of the most worrying and serious misdeameanours of some councillors and senior officers is the political hoodwinking that has gone on during this process, which is an absolute disgrace. In any other walk of life, these people would be facing criminal charges for fraud and perverting the course of justice - they make Rebekah Brooks allegations look insignificant by comparison. Mr Crabtree

1:23am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Great Buda wrote:
That because the Press (thankfully) deleted the worst of them. The only one remaining is his rather half-hearted attempt at an apology.
Don't think so. I never saw them, and have been following this thread most assiduously, as evidenced by my frequent posts.

I think you are a trouble causer, who uses underhanded tactics to smear others. Provide evidence of what Coun Galvin said - quote him if you dare ?
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: That because the Press (thankfully) deleted the worst of them. The only one remaining is his rather half-hearted attempt at an apology.[/p][/quote]Don't think so. I never saw them, and have been following this thread most assiduously, as evidenced by my frequent posts. I think you are a trouble causer, who uses underhanded tactics to smear others. Provide evidence of what Coun Galvin said - quote him if you dare ? Mr Crabtree

1:47am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ?

Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ? Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this. Mr Crabtree

1:53am Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted?
Those were on the other story actually, and were removed long before Buzz posted his spurrious misrepresented figures.

You are just another trouble causer who has no knowledge, no facts and no substantive argument. You are like many in your camp, a bluffer and a fraud.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.[/p][/quote]I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted?[/p][/quote]Those were on the other story actually, and were removed long before Buzz posted his spurrious misrepresented figures. You are just another trouble causer who has no knowledge, no facts and no substantive argument. You are like many in your camp, a bluffer and a fraud. Mr Crabtree

2:03am Sat 19 May 12

sharpish says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
sharpish wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
bolero wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.
I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.
I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City!
Sharpish

You have rescued my sanity, as the barrage of posters wrongly labelling me as some sort of obsessive imbecile had taken it's toll. I thank you for your support, and for recognising that I have made valid and substantive arguments based on factual evidence, not speculation and misinformation.

I also realise that you speak from a position of knowledge and experience, but, you are not Mrs Galvin as someone has wrongly speculated.

One of the most worrying and serious misdeameanours of some councillors and senior officers is the political hoodwinking that has gone on during this process, which is an absolute disgrace. In any other walk of life, these people would be facing criminal charges for fraud and perverting the course of justice - they make Rebekah Brooks allegations look insignificant by comparison.
Thanks Mr C.

Do keep your sanity and just skip past all the ignorant comments, whilst taking to heart the sensible ones!

You are right of course that I'm not Mrs Galvin but Great Buda's silly observation didn't really deserve to be acknowledged yet alone corrected - but I did chuckle at the thought!!!!!

Hope things improve for you soon......
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sharpish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Watch out, here he comes. Just ignore him, he might go away.[/p][/quote]I won't be lectured by you or any of your bully-boy mob. I will comment when and as much as I like, and there are many that agree with my views whether you like it or not.[/p][/quote]I almost always agree with your posts Mr C! I was pleased to see you sticking up for Cllr Galvin too and am appalled at some of the remarks made by others who disapproved of the way he voted. Hats off to all the councillors who recognised the folly of approving such a scheme and who had the integrity to vote against it! Hats off to you Mr C as well, for your dogged pursuit of the inept council officers who are ruining our City![/p][/quote]Sharpish You have rescued my sanity, as the barrage of posters wrongly labelling me as some sort of obsessive imbecile had taken it's toll. I thank you for your support, and for recognising that I have made valid and substantive arguments based on factual evidence, not speculation and misinformation. I also realise that you speak from a position of knowledge and experience, but, you are not Mrs Galvin as someone has wrongly speculated. One of the most worrying and serious misdeameanours of some councillors and senior officers is the political hoodwinking that has gone on during this process, which is an absolute disgrace. In any other walk of life, these people would be facing criminal charges for fraud and perverting the course of justice - they make Rebekah Brooks allegations look insignificant by comparison.[/p][/quote]Thanks Mr C. Do keep your sanity and just skip past all the ignorant comments, whilst taking to heart the sensible ones! You are right of course that I'm not Mrs Galvin but Great Buda's silly observation didn't really deserve to be acknowledged yet alone corrected - but I did chuckle at the thought!!!!! Hope things improve for you soon...... sharpish

7:24am Sat 19 May 12

bits'n'bobs says...

We need a Primark in York that will help keep shoppers in the city
We need a Primark in York that will help keep shoppers in the city bits'n'bobs

8:30am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ?

Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.
Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils.
In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ? Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.[/p][/quote]Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils. In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions. speaks99

8:50am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

peterstreet.

Nobody has said anything against Peter Brown or Adam Sinclair which hasn't been published in the press. Everything we say about them is fact.

Peter Brown
It is fact that Peter brown, 6 months before this was put for planning was quoted in an article by the press about how well York are doing. I believe the words he used were "thriving". Then suddenly in November C4Y held a meeting. Peter Browns outlook suddenly switched, and York is in "intensive care". FACT - you can go look it up.

Adam Sinclair

Very openly is campaigning against out of town retail. (You cant have missed that). He owns Mulberry Hall at the designer outlet. Duplicity? I believe so.

Adam Sinclair also has said at the council meeting on Thursday that he campaigned against the coppergate2 development because it wasn't right for cliffords tower. Yet at the time he said it was because other areas of York couldn't compete on a level playing field. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

So the real question should be why was Adam Sinclair blatantly lying to the councillors deciding on this?

Again, all this is published fact. You see, I don't need to twist words or make things up, because I have used their own words.
peterstreet. Nobody has said anything against Peter Brown or Adam Sinclair which hasn't been published in the press. Everything we say about them is fact. Peter Brown It is fact that Peter brown, 6 months before this was put for planning was quoted in an article by the press about how well York are doing. I believe the words he used were "thriving". Then suddenly in November C4Y held a meeting. Peter Browns outlook suddenly switched, and York is in "intensive care". FACT - you can go look it up. Adam Sinclair Very openly is campaigning against out of town retail. (You cant have missed that). He owns Mulberry Hall at the designer outlet. Duplicity? I believe so. Adam Sinclair also has said at the council meeting on Thursday that he campaigned against the coppergate2 development because it wasn't right for cliffords tower. Yet at the time he said it was because other areas of York couldn't compete on a level playing field. Sounds familiar doesn't it. So the real question should be why was Adam Sinclair blatantly lying to the councillors deciding on this? Again, all this is published fact. You see, I don't need to twist words or make things up, because I have used their own words. speaks99

9:03am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

This is VERY IMPORTANT.

The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over.

We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in".

This is how you can still make a difference.

email Eric Pickles at:

eric@ericpickles.com


Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York.

You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance:

Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally.
Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth
Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision
No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole
Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12)
Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain
Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire

Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support.

Do it now!! Make a difference.
This is VERY IMPORTANT. The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over. We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in". This is how you can still make a difference. email Eric Pickles at: eric@ericpickles.com Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York. You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance: Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally. Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12) Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support. Do it now!! Make a difference. speaks99

9:17am Sat 19 May 12

peterstreet says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ?

Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.
Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils.
In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions.
“Localism” may be in vogue as conservative thinking but like every fad it must operate within planning guidelines and planning law. That is the issue here, not whether we wish to see a community stadium on that site. You YCFC posters are so blinded by your narrow prejudiced passion that you cannot see the wood for the trees. We will see how it all pans out but I have a horrible feeling that local Labour might just have lost the next Local election, My reason? James Alexander’s actions will not stand up to the scrutiny of a public inquiry if there is one.

If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ? Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.[/p][/quote]Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils. In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions.[/p][/quote]“Localism” may be in vogue as conservative thinking but like every fad it must operate within planning guidelines and planning law. That is the issue here, not whether we wish to see a community stadium on that site. You YCFC posters are so blinded by your narrow prejudiced passion that you cannot see the wood for the trees. We will see how it all pans out but I have a horrible feeling that local Labour might just have lost the next Local election, My reason? James Alexander’s actions will not stand up to the scrutiny of a public inquiry if there is one. If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

9:26am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

This is VERY IMPORTANT.

The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over.

We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in".

This is how you can still make a difference.

email Eric Pickles at:

eric@ericpickles.com



Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York.

You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance:

Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally.
Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth
Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision
No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole
Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12)
Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain
Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire

Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support.

Do it now!! Make a difference.
This is VERY IMPORTANT. The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over. We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in". This is how you can still make a difference. email Eric Pickles at: eric@ericpickles.com Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York. You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance: Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally. Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12) Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support. Do it now!! Make a difference. speaks99

9:26am Sat 19 May 12

peterstreet says...

speaks99 wrote:
This is VERY IMPORTANT.

The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over.

We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in".

This is how you can still make a difference.

email Eric Pickles at:

eric@ericpickles.com



Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York.

You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance:

Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally.
Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth
Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision
No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole
Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12)
Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain
Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire

Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support.

Do it now!! Make a difference.
speaks99 you obviously do not understand how the system works but go ahead and waste your time, in the meantime;
If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: This is VERY IMPORTANT. The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over. We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in". This is how you can still make a difference. email Eric Pickles at: eric@ericpickles.com Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York. You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance: Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally. Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12) Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support. Do it now!! Make a difference.[/p][/quote]speaks99 you obviously do not understand how the system works but go ahead and waste your time, in the meantime; If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test. peterstreet

9:33am Sat 19 May 12

paintitred says...

The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y?

zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten.

THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y? zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten. THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU paintitred

9:33am Sat 19 May 12

The Great Buda says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted?
Those were on the other story actually, and were removed long before Buzz posted his spurrious misrepresented figures.

You are just another trouble causer who has no knowledge, no facts and no substantive argument. You are like many in your camp, a bluffer and a fraud.
Back to the insults I see.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.[/p][/quote]I see you ignored the ones you posted that the Press deleted?[/p][/quote]Those were on the other story actually, and were removed long before Buzz posted his spurrious misrepresented figures. You are just another trouble causer who has no knowledge, no facts and no substantive argument. You are like many in your camp, a bluffer and a fraud.[/p][/quote]Back to the insults I see. The Great Buda

9:44am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
This is VERY IMPORTANT.

The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over.

We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in".

This is how you can still make a difference.

email Eric Pickles at:

eric@ericpickles.com




Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York.

You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance:

Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally.
Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth
Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision
No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole
Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12)
Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain
Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire

Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support.

Do it now!! Make a difference.
speaks99 you obviously do not understand how the system works but go ahead and waste your time, in the meantime;
If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
peterstreet I very much know how the system works as this was advice that was given to me by Steve Galloway.
I emailed eric pickles several months ago about this very issue and have had a confirmation email from his personal secretary that my opinion will be taken into account if and when eric pickles has to make that decision. I believe the word you are looking for is "lobbying".

So peterstreet, whether you are misinformed, or just plain lying to try and stop people lobbying FOR this development, you CAN lobby for this development.
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: This is VERY IMPORTANT. The fight to have a John Lewis and flagship M&S , fantastic sporting and community facilities is not yet over. We have passed the first hurdle, but certain traders and the Campaign for York will campaign to get this "called in". This is how you can still make a difference. email Eric Pickles at: eric@ericpickles.com Tell him that you support the application for Monks Cross and the stadium development in York. You can any or all of the below to your email to give it substance: Calling it in goes against the governments "localism" policy where councils should be given the authority to take decisions locally. Governments over riding objective of sustainable growth Councillors gave a resounding "YES" to the proposal - was no where near a split decision No evidence to suggest this will have a detrimental effect on the City of York as a whole Will bring much needed income to the council after the decision by government to allow 50% of rates to be held locally (17/05/12) Bring in much needed jobs to the area - forecast at over 400 net gain Provide first class community facilities as well as safeguarding the future of the only professional sports team in North Yorkshire Words to that effect. The campaign for York are sending in there own objections. You too can make a difference by sending in emails of support. Do it now!! Make a difference.[/p][/quote]speaks99 you obviously do not understand how the system works but go ahead and waste your time, in the meantime; If any reader would like to see the monks cross decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]peterstreet I very much know how the system works as this was advice that was given to me by Steve Galloway. I emailed eric pickles several months ago about this very issue and have had a confirmation email from his personal secretary that my opinion will be taken into account if and when eric pickles has to make that decision. I believe the word you are looking for is "lobbying". So peterstreet, whether you are misinformed, or just plain lying to try and stop people lobbying FOR this development, you CAN lobby for this development. speaks99

9:46am Sat 19 May 12

peterstreet says...

paintitred wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y?

zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten.

THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU
"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon!
[quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y? zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten. THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU[/p][/quote]"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon! peterstreet

10:00am Sat 19 May 12

peterstreet says...

You really sought advise from an expert did'nt you. I will say it again the decision to "call in" a planning decision is made by cival servants in Leeds, the decision to call for a public enquiry is made by the Secretary of State afteer his cival servents, who are experts in planning Law and guidelines, have reviewed all the facts. The reason for writing to the GOYH is simply to make sure that The cival servants in Leeds are aware of all the issues as on reciept of letters of objection, they have a duty to investigate the facts which are incontrovertible. The planning commitee went against its on local plan and ignored the advice of its Highways officers whilst muzzleing its own planning officers who were forced to ignore their duty in advising the commitee. Simple as simple simon mate, its nothing to do with football now, its much more serious than that! If the Secretary of State orders an enquiry it is very serious for this city and its Council.
You really sought advise from an expert did'nt you. I will say it again the decision to "call in" a planning decision is made by cival servants in Leeds, the decision to call for a public enquiry is made by the Secretary of State afteer his cival servents, who are experts in planning Law and guidelines, have reviewed all the facts. The reason for writing to the GOYH is simply to make sure that The cival servants in Leeds are aware of all the issues as on reciept of letters of objection, they have a duty to investigate the facts which are incontrovertible. The planning commitee went against its on local plan and ignored the advice of its Highways officers whilst muzzleing its own planning officers who were forced to ignore their duty in advising the commitee. Simple as simple simon mate, its nothing to do with football now, its much more serious than that! If the Secretary of State orders an enquiry it is very serious for this city and its Council. peterstreet

10:01am Sat 19 May 12

peterstreet says...

You really sought advise from an expert did'nt you. I will say it again the decision to "call in" a planning decision is made by cival servants in Leeds, the decision to call for a public enquiry is made by the Secretary of State afteer his cival servents, who are experts in planning Law and guidelines, have reviewed all the facts. The reason for writing to the GOYH is simply to make sure that The cival servants in Leeds are aware of all the issues as on reciept of letters of objection, they have a duty to investigate the facts which are incontrovertible. The planning commitee went against its on local plan and ignored the advice of its Highways officers whilst muzzleing its own planning officers who were forced to ignore their duty in advising the commitee. Simple as simple simon mate, its nothing to do with football now, its much more serious than that! If the Secretary of State orders an enquiry it is very serious for this city and its Council.
You really sought advise from an expert did'nt you. I will say it again the decision to "call in" a planning decision is made by cival servants in Leeds, the decision to call for a public enquiry is made by the Secretary of State afteer his cival servents, who are experts in planning Law and guidelines, have reviewed all the facts. The reason for writing to the GOYH is simply to make sure that The cival servants in Leeds are aware of all the issues as on reciept of letters of objection, they have a duty to investigate the facts which are incontrovertible. The planning commitee went against its on local plan and ignored the advice of its Highways officers whilst muzzleing its own planning officers who were forced to ignore their duty in advising the commitee. Simple as simple simon mate, its nothing to do with football now, its much more serious than that! If the Secretary of State orders an enquiry it is very serious for this city and its Council. peterstreet

10:16am Sat 19 May 12

paintitred says...

peterstreet wrote:
paintitred wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y? zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten. THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU
"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon!
LOL LOL LOL LOL

11-4 U TOOK A BEATING LOL LOL
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y? zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten. THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU[/p][/quote]"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon![/p][/quote]LOL LOL LOL LOL 11-4 U TOOK A BEATING LOL LOL paintitred

10:19am Sat 19 May 12

paintitred says...

STILL THE SCAREMONGERING CONTINUES.

DESPRATE TIMES FOR C4Y , I THINK A COMPLAINT SHOULD BE MADE ABOUT YOUR TRIBES NAME. AS YOU CERTAINLY NOT CAPMAIGNING FORM ME AN I CERTAINLY ARE 100% FROM YORK
STILL THE SCAREMONGERING CONTINUES. DESPRATE TIMES FOR C4Y , I THINK A COMPLAINT SHOULD BE MADE ABOUT YOUR TRIBES NAME. AS YOU CERTAINLY NOT CAPMAIGNING FORM ME AN I CERTAINLY ARE 100% FROM YORK paintitred

11:05am Sat 19 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance.

Read the post - They are ctrl-f results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term.
Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat, I'm not a council officer, I have no allies in this because if you hadn't noticed I'm not involved. You are once again out of order for saying all those things.
The figures I gave are not distorted.
There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much?

And really? You took the time to count everyone's posts? Sheesh! :D
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.[/p][/quote]Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are [bold]ctrl-f[/bold] results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat, I'm not a council officer, I have no allies in this because if you hadn't noticed I'm not involved. You are once again out of order for saying all those things. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? And really? You took the time to count everyone's posts? Sheesh! :D Buzz Light-year

11:32am Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

peterstreet - I suggest you read todays article - interesting piece in there about how eric pickles now has to decide whether to call it in.
peterstreet - I suggest you read todays article - interesting piece in there about how eric pickles now has to decide whether to call it in. speaks99

11:45am Sat 19 May 12

onlooker says...

Will you guys PLEASE stop using the quote facility on all you comments and replies. It's making it almost impossible to wade through this thread.
And on the subject of posts, be aware that some posts have been removed (I know mine have), so if Crabtree is working from a saved copy of the thread, he will get a different total than CTRL-F
Will you guys PLEASE stop using the quote facility on all you comments and replies. It's making it almost impossible to wade through this thread. And on the subject of posts, be aware that some posts have been removed (I know mine have), so if Crabtree is working from a saved copy of the thread, he will get a different total than CTRL-F onlooker

12:50pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ? Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.
Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils. In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions.
I don't know who is worse you or them (Council) ? They know the rules and blatantly ignored and broke them. You clearly don't know the rules, make up some skewed, misinformed interpretation to suit your argument, and hope gullible footy fans will believe you. Others however, who do understand what localism is about; which still requires a development framework and planning rules, will see right through you. Your a bluffer. The Planning Inspector or Secretary of State, will determine this, not you..
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]You are wrong, and either a bluffer or delusional ? Localism, is allowing locals to decide on development, but, development needs to be sustainable, and in accordance with the Core Strategy - on land allocated for a specific use. This land was not allocated and the decision flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF. The council have blatantly disregarded all the rules, and the consequences of this are serious. Pleading that it complies with the spirit of localism, has no merit or relevance when fundamental rules have not been followed. There is a strong probability that it will be thrown out at a public inquiry, and I hope that opponents to it will seek expert advice, to confirm this.[/p][/quote]Wrong Mr C this time. Localism is allowing local councils make decisions locally. It has nothing to do with "core strategy" or "on land for a specific use". Its not that specific. Its about giving, and keeping, power with local councils. In this case the council have made a decision, and they have judged that the potential benefits, the sustainability, the additional revenue outweighs the potential issues and problems. Localism is about allowing councils to make these decisions.[/p][/quote]I don't know who is worse you or them (Council) ? They know the rules and blatantly ignored and broke them. You clearly don't know the rules, make up some skewed, misinformed interpretation to suit your argument, and hope gullible footy fans will believe you. Others however, who do understand what localism is about; which still requires a development framework and planning rules, will see right through you. Your a bluffer. The Planning Inspector or Secretary of State, will determine this, not you.. Mr Crabtree

1:04pm Sat 19 May 12

speaks99 says...

Sorry Mr Crabtree. With all due respect I believe the words of Steve Galloway and Eric Pickles over you. Just admit you're wrong this time. Go on. I dare you.
Sorry Mr Crabtree. With all due respect I believe the words of Steve Galloway and Eric Pickles over you. Just admit you're wrong this time. Go on. I dare you. speaks99

1:10pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Mr Crabtree wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29
I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.
Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are ctrl-f results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat, I'm not a council officer, I have no allies in this because if you hadn't noticed I'm not involved. You are once again out of order for saying all those things. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? And really? You took the time to count everyone's posts? Sheesh! :D
What were you trying to prove ?

It looked to me like you were using the figures to represent the number of posts, and discredit me ?

You're an observer are you ? and you're not involved ?

Based on your previous posts, you are a trouble causer, who has a very strange way of making some sort of weird point.

Paranoid ? Is there any wonder ? Have you read what walwynwasgod has been spouting ?

Why not go and 'observe' something that you can get involved with ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: And here are the ctrl-f results so far: Crabtree: 89 speaks99: 67 AngryandFrustrated: 67 walwynwasgod: 65 Even AndyD:29[/p][/quote]I was wrong, you can't count can you ? or, are you just trying to cheat ? I have counted the number of original posts (excluding quoted ones) on this thread, and up to the point where you posted at 9.24pm they were, highest to lowest, as follows:- Walwynwasgod : 39 Mr Crabtree : 26 Speaks99 : 22 Angry&Frustrated : 20 AndyD : 8 So, you have tried to distort and misrepresent the figures to try and discredit me as the most obsessed poster, when in fact Walwynwasgod is. Are you a council officer by any chance ? These are the sort of stunts they try and pull, but, some of us check the facts. You do nothing to further your cause by cheating like this, and make yourself and your allies look like frauds.[/p][/quote]Crabtree - There you go again with your false accusations based on ignorance. Read the post - They are [bold]ctrl-f[/bold] results. What you do is you press and hold the Ctrl key then f. You get a little little box which allows you to search a page for any given term. Remember Crabtree, I'm an observer. I'm not trying to discredit anyone or cheat, I'm not a council officer, I have no allies in this because if you hadn't noticed I'm not involved. You are once again out of order for saying all those things. The figures I gave are not distorted. There are 5 names in my post why would I be singling you out? Paranoid much? And really? You took the time to count everyone's posts? Sheesh! :D[/p][/quote]What were you trying to prove ? It looked to me like you were using the figures to represent the number of posts, and discredit me ? You're an observer are you ? and you're not involved ? Based on your previous posts, you are a trouble causer, who has a very strange way of making some sort of weird point. Paranoid ? Is there any wonder ? Have you read what walwynwasgod has been spouting ? Why not go and 'observe' something that you can get involved with ? Mr Crabtree

1:24pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

speaks99 wrote:
Sorry Mr Crabtree. With all due respect I believe the words of Steve Galloway and Eric Pickles over you. Just admit you're wrong this time. Go on. I dare you.
You got a standard reply/acknowledgemen
t from EP's secretary, that's all. I've had them from his secretary, Greg Clark's and Grant Shapp's.
It proves nothing, and in most cases, nothing further happens. I expect your lobbying letter will go where several of my complaint letters have ended up - in the bin !

Your pleadings will not count for anything I'm afraid. You are not a planning expert (clearly) and the whole issue is about interpretation of the RULES. Localism is a CONCEPT. Rules are Acts of Parliament, and they should be followed not IGNORED. The NPPF and LDF take precedence over localism in this issue. Ask a barrister !
[quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: Sorry Mr Crabtree. With all due respect I believe the words of Steve Galloway and Eric Pickles over you. Just admit you're wrong this time. Go on. I dare you.[/p][/quote]You got a standard reply/acknowledgemen t from EP's secretary, that's all. I've had them from his secretary, Greg Clark's and Grant Shapp's. It proves nothing, and in most cases, nothing further happens. I expect your lobbying letter will go where several of my complaint letters have ended up - in the bin ! Your pleadings will not count for anything I'm afraid. You are not a planning expert (clearly) and the whole issue is about interpretation of the RULES. Localism is a CONCEPT. Rules are Acts of Parliament, and they should be followed not IGNORED. The NPPF and LDF take precedence over localism in this issue. Ask a barrister ! Mr Crabtree

1:36pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

In recent appeals I have looked at, success of a development to proceed has been based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is the over-arching principle used for economic growth. The clue is in the word 'sustainable'. Oakgate's application is not considered sustainable; it failed the sequential test, and did not clear the transport hurdle. This will be the key factor, and the fact that it ignores the LDF/Core Strategy.

You should lobby Bill Woolley on these points, and ask him for his assurance that the decision is sound and will not be overturned. I predict that you will get a very 'woolly' answer, that's if you get one ?
In recent appeals I have looked at, success of a development to proceed has been based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is the over-arching principle used for economic growth. The clue is in the word 'sustainable'. Oakgate's application is not considered sustainable; it failed the sequential test, and did not clear the transport hurdle. This will be the key factor, and the fact that it ignores the LDF/Core Strategy. You should lobby Bill Woolley on these points, and ask him for his assurance that the decision is sound and will not be overturned. I predict that you will get a very 'woolly' answer, that's if you get one ? Mr Crabtree

1:39pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

'RES IPSA LOQUITUR'

Look it up 'speaks99' or ask your barrister what it means ;-)
'RES IPSA LOQUITUR' Look it up 'speaks99' or ask your barrister what it means ;-) Mr Crabtree

1:47pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

By the time this goes in front of a Planning Inspector, Bill Woolley will have long gone, and will be enjoying his retirement on the proceeds of his labours ??

It's all in the plan - take the money and run. When the sh*t hits the fan, make sure some other mug takes the heat.
By the time this goes in front of a Planning Inspector, Bill Woolley will have long gone, and will be enjoying his retirement on the proceeds of his labours ?? It's all in the plan - take the money and run. When the sh*t hits the fan, make sure some other mug takes the heat. Mr Crabtree

1:56pm Sat 19 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Crabtree -

What were you trying to prove ?

That the huge post count on this issue is down to a small number of obviously passionate posters. Nothing more, nothing less.

It looked to me like you were using the figures to represent the number of posts, and discredit me ?

Like I say, paranoid. If you knew what ctrl-f was maybe you would have felt better about it? Besides, I don't need to do anything to discredit you.

Based on your previous posts, you are a trouble causer,

More false accusations.
I repeat - this is a comments facility for all readers to have their say whether you agree with them or not. It's not up to you who can post what.

Paranoid ? Is there any wonder ? Have you read what walwynwasgod has been spouting ?

Yes. Funny how out of all the users of this site it's always the name Crabtree where there's any big or heated conflict.
And you call me trouble causer?

I don't want to get into yet another of your silly conflicts Crabtree. The others named in my results didn't see fit to call me names and accuse me of being a council officer and I'm not going to take it from you.
Where speaks99 made a joke out of it, you called me a cheat and a fraud.
An apology would be appropriate.

Lighten up, dude. Really.
Crabtree - [quote]What were you trying to prove ?[/quote] That the huge post count on this issue is down to a small number of obviously passionate posters. Nothing more, nothing less. [quote]It looked to me like you were using the figures to represent the number of posts, and discredit me ?[/quote] Like I say, paranoid. If you knew what ctrl-f was maybe you would have felt better about it? Besides, I don't need to do anything to discredit you. [quote]Based on your previous posts, you are a trouble causer,[/quote] More false accusations. I repeat - this is a comments facility for all readers to have their say whether you agree with them or not. It's not up to you who can post what. [quote]Paranoid ? Is there any wonder ? Have you read what walwynwasgod has been spouting ?[/quote] Yes. Funny how out of all the users of this site it's always the name Crabtree where there's any big or heated conflict. And you call me trouble causer? I don't want to get into yet another of your silly conflicts Crabtree. The others named in my results didn't see fit to call me names and accuse me of being a council officer and I'm not going to take it from you. Where speaks99 made a joke out of it, you called me a cheat and a fraud. An apology would be appropriate. Lighten up, dude. Really. Buzz Light-year

2:47pm Sat 19 May 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Buzz

The reference to the search function, Ctrl-F, is a complete red herring.

The post count you gave wasn't factual, and unfairly showed me with far more than the others. Walwynwasgod made far more than me. That is misrepresenting things; it isn't factual - it's a lie, and you clearly did it to ridicule me.

"Funny how out of all the users of this site it's always the name Crabtree where there's any big or heated conflict."


The biggest argument going on was between 'Angry&Frustrated' and 'Walwynwasgod', but, you ignore that to put me in the frame instead.

Like others who spin and distort things, you will be found out and caught out.

Get off my back, and go and cause trouble for your own pack of wind-up merchants.
Buzz The reference to the search function, Ctrl-F, is a complete red herring. The post count you gave wasn't factual, and unfairly showed me with far more than the others. Walwynwasgod made far more than me. That is misrepresenting things; it isn't factual - it's a lie, and you clearly did it to ridicule me. [quote] "Funny how out of all the users of this site it's always the name Crabtree where there's any big or heated conflict." [/quote] The biggest argument going on was between 'Angry&Frustrated' and 'Walwynwasgod', but, you ignore that to put me in the frame instead. Like others who spin and distort things, you will be found out and caught out. Get off my back, and go and cause trouble for your own pack of wind-up merchants. Mr Crabtree

3:57pm Sat 19 May 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Crabtree -

You still don't get it do you?
I didn't give a post count.
I gave the total number of instances of the names.
That's what ctrl-f does - it finds all the instances of a phrase, a word or even just a letter.
Maybe you use a substandard browser but when I do ctrl-f and then type let's say speaks99 into the box it highlights all instances of that phrase and gives a figure, for example 110, which is what the total is now for speaks99.
If I type andyd into it I get 62.
For walwyn I get 90.
If I type andfrustrated I get 74.
For crabtree I get 168.
Anyone with half a brain will know that a lot of the times the names come up will be in quoting and addressing each other.

If you can hold the bile just long enough to understand that bit of basic info you will see my post was not fraud, not cheating, not a lie, not trouble making and clearly not ridiculing you.
It was a 100% accurate observation. It was an interesting point of note and once again you failed to understand, took it personally and reacted with nasty and unnecessary name-calling.

I'm not on your back at all, you chose to turn it into a spat when you started on me, remember there are four other names on the list. Are they kicking off about it?
Just you then.
Crabtree - You still don't get it do you? I didn't give a post count. I gave the total number of instances of the names. That's what ctrl-f does - it finds all the instances of a phrase, a word or even just a letter. Maybe you use a substandard browser but when I do ctrl-f and then type let's say speaks99 into the box it highlights all instances of that phrase and gives a figure, for example 110, which is what the total is now for speaks99. If I type andyd into it I get 62. For walwyn I get 90. If I type andfrustrated I get 74. For crabtree I get 168. Anyone with half a brain will know that a lot of the times the names come up will be in quoting and addressing each other. If you can hold the bile just long enough to understand that bit of basic info you will see my post was not fraud, not cheating, not a lie, not trouble making and clearly not ridiculing you. It was a 100% accurate observation. It was an interesting point of note and once again you failed to understand, took it personally and reacted with nasty and unnecessary name-calling. I'm not on your back at all, you chose to turn it into a spat when you started on me, remember there are four other names on the list. Are they kicking off about it? Just you then. Buzz Light-year

4:30pm Sat 19 May 12

The Great Buda says...

peterstreet wrote:
paintitred wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
speaks99 wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
peterstreet wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
swh1963 wrote:
duffy wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.
Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.
Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)
If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?
Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses!
NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.
Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?
Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y?

zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten.

THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU
"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon!
Wow. You felt the need to swear. How very mature of you.
[quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paintitred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speaks99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterstreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swh1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duffy[/bold] wrote: As said before, it's now time for everyone to come together and leave the insults behind. It's getting built.[/p][/quote]Mr Crabtree may or may not be right about the ethics or even the legality of the process and the decision but I for one would rather do the right thing the wrong way than the wrong thing the right way.[/p][/quote]Must admit - I'm like this. Sartre was right, ends justify the means. Rules are made to be re-written by less stupid ones! :-)[/p][/quote]If there is one thing I hate it’s a cowardly anonymous pseudo intellectual. It could be that a planning appeal tribunal Chairperson will be re-writing yesterday’s planning decision before to long, most knowledgeable people I know believe the Chair has enough reason with yesterdays ridiculous decision and if this City has to pay the enormous costs that planning appeals usually result in we all know where the blame lies. Will your Football club be contributing may I ask? If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]sour grapes. you lost. the right thing was done. sorry - was that too pseudo intellectual for you?[/p][/quote]Oh, and by the way if anyone has trawled through the 200 million comments, you can also write to Erik Pickles to campaign against the government calling this in. Just email the same or write and quote that to call it in goes against there own localism agenda where local decisions are made by local councils. Thanks Peterstreet for the addresses![/p][/quote]NO! you cannot campaign against a "call in" you fool! It is a decision made by cival servents to bring to the Governments attention any planning matters that they judge to be wrong, or illegal or against Government policy or guidlines or against good planning practise.TAKE YOUR PICK, also the addresses are public knowledge if you had the intelligence to look for them, you idiots have opened a can of worms and there is no knowing how it will turn out. My judgement is also that you have alienated a significant proportion of York citizens against your football club because f your behaviour, Yiou might all think you are very clever, but we will have to wait and see how this all turns out! If any reader would like to see yesterdays decision thoroughly examined the first step is to write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi .gov.uk State your objection, ask for an enquiry and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM Nothing could be easier !! example objections could be e.g. because the ruling councillors on the commitee went against their own local plan. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that the planning officers declined to give advice as their duty demanded, A Tribunal would certainly demand to know why, or the fact that the highways officers who advised that the application be refused were ignored by there own councillors and the scheme failed the councils own sustainability test.[/p][/quote]Its not against Government policy though is it. I take it you've not heard of the Conservative policy of Localism?[/p][/quote]Are we going to see this email address posted 20,000 times to match the 20,000 mail shots/leaflets printed by c4y? zzzz you guys just dont get it do you. you guys gave it your best shot and took an ebarassing beating you have to know when your beaten. THE OFFICERS SAW RIGHT THROUGH YOUR SCAREMONGERING. MR PICKLESS WILL LAUGH AT YOU[/p][/quote]"YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WORRIED" me thinks you little **** crowed to soon![/p][/quote]Wow. You felt the need to swear. How very mature of you. The Great Buda

7:09pm Sat 19 May 12

RoseD says...

honestworker wrote:
this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town. The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!!
Exactly. To top it off, the "improvements" that Coun Alexander threatens include increasing the pedestrianised area so my usable section of York will shrink. If he gets his bully way and pedestrianises Gillygate I wont get out of my house at all. I have a blue badge but cant drive to Coppergate--TAXIS only like I can afford that--and besides its very hard to drive thru the crowds. So his fix is to destroy the town centre, NOT fight for reasonable business rates, NOT offer reasonable parking (indeed he tried to give away a major parking lot) and then leave disabled ppl who dont have money for taxis stuck at home. Yes honestworker, soon only pub drinkers, hen parties and yobs in the centre. Maybe coyc's end game is to drive us lot all away and see all the houses bought by rich toffs. What do they care. All shops will sell tourist trinkets or be coffee or sandwich shops. Or hair salons.
[quote][p][bold]honestworker[/bold] wrote: this is a joke ive worked in town for over 10 years and it is hard enough to keep shops alive as it is. this is typical of the people i powers. for years they make it so hard for people to get into york with shocking car parking fees , disgusting prices. more and more people been pushed away making our job even harder. now what have we got??? everything you need now miles out of town. in 10 years york will be a boarded up town. The annoying thing is the small honest shops in york town centre will be forced to either cut back or close for good (like so many have all ready) and there will be no help from anyone. well at least the local trouble makers that ruin the centre of town will soon have the place to them selfs!![/p][/quote]Exactly. To top it off, the "improvements" that Coun Alexander threatens include increasing the pedestrianised area so my usable section of York will shrink. If he gets his bully way and pedestrianises Gillygate I wont get out of my house at all. I have a blue badge but cant drive to Coppergate--TAXIS only like I can afford that--and besides its very hard to drive thru the crowds. So his fix is to destroy the town centre, NOT fight for reasonable business rates, NOT offer reasonable parking (indeed he tried to give away a major parking lot) and then leave disabled ppl who dont have money for taxis stuck at home. Yes honestworker, soon only pub drinkers, hen parties and yobs in the centre. Maybe coyc's end game is to drive us lot all away and see all the houses bought by rich toffs. What do they care. All shops will sell tourist trinkets or be coffee or sandwich shops. Or hair salons. RoseD

8:33pm Sat 19 May 12

The Great Buda says...

RoseD; whether you like it or not, the very nature of the City Centre is changing; just as it always has.

It is moving away from being a retail hub. When did you last see a Blacksmiths?

Evolve or die.
RoseD; whether you like it or not, the very nature of the City Centre is changing; just as it always has. It is moving away from being a retail hub. When did you last see a Blacksmiths? Evolve or die. The Great Buda

11:01pm Sat 19 May 12

swh1963 says...

The Great Buda wrote:
RoseD; whether you like it or not, the very nature of the City Centre is changing; just as it always has.

It is moving away from being a retail hub. When did you last see a Blacksmiths?

Evolve or die.
Indeed: FR Stubbs - part of York's history, it had its day and the city moved on just as it will move on from Barnitts and Mulberry Hall in due course. Let's concentrate on inspiring the next generation of entrepreneurs to come up with something new and great for the city rather than mollycoddling yesterday's shopkeepers, who are all for competition and a free market until until it affects them.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: RoseD; whether you like it or not, the very nature of the City Centre is changing; just as it always has. It is moving away from being a retail hub. When did you last see a Blacksmiths? Evolve or die.[/p][/quote]Indeed: FR Stubbs - part of York's history, it had its day and the city moved on just as it will move on from Barnitts and Mulberry Hall in due course. Let's concentrate on inspiring the next generation of entrepreneurs to come up with something new and great for the city rather than mollycoddling yesterday's shopkeepers, who are all for competition and a free market until until it affects them. swh1963

7:41pm Sun 20 May 12

York1900 says...

YORK City’s victorious FC needs the ground to be bigger than developers are offering if YORK City FC is going to make money at the new stadium.
YORK City’s victorious FC needs the ground to be bigger than developers are offering if YORK City FC is going to make money at the new stadium. York1900

6:39am Mon 21 May 12

aph1705 says...

I have read 80% of the comments posted and have not seen any comments regarding the fact that M&S are actually vacating their two current stores at Monks Cross and their one in the Coppergate centre and relocating it all to the new store being built as part of the project. As for John Lewis, they won't kill any of the shops in the centre just create quite a large number of new jobs.
As regards to York City FC this is the best thing that could have happened for them, getting a brand new stadium with excellent parking. How many of you who have commented have been near Bootham Crescent on match day looking for somewhere to park and found in nigh on impossible. Yes it will take some trade out of the area but mostly for the Pubs
I have read 80% of the comments posted and have not seen any comments regarding the fact that M&S are actually vacating their two current stores at Monks Cross and their one in the Coppergate centre and relocating it all to the new store being built as part of the project. As for John Lewis, they won't kill any of the shops in the centre just create quite a large number of new jobs. As regards to York City FC this is the best thing that could have happened for them, getting a brand new stadium with excellent parking. How many of you who have commented have been near Bootham Crescent on match day looking for somewhere to park and found in nigh on impossible. Yes it will take some trade out of the area but mostly for the Pubs aph1705

6:41am Mon 21 May 12

aph1705 says...

I have read 80% of the comments posted and have not seen any comments regarding the fact that M&S are actually vacating th