Huge development beckons after dramatic 'yes' vote (From York Press)

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.

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!!

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!!

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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???????????

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.

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

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.

YorkToff wrote:
Who cares!

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 ? !!!!

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.....!

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

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.

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.....!

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.....!

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.....!

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!)

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 !

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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

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 !

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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???????????

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

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 !

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.

walwynwasgod wrote:
peterstreet

Mob rule ?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ? !!!!

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

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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,

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....

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.

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 ? !!!

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.

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 !

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 ?

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?!

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.

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?

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!).

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 !

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.

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! :-)

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.

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!).

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....."

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!!

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!).

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.

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`.

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!

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...

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.

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

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

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)

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.

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?

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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 ....

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!!

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 ?

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!

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.

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

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.

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! :-)

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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?

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?

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 !

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! ;-)

bolero wrote:
Are these ages or IQs?

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 !

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! ;-)

"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. "

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.