Call for stadium and shops inquiry (From York Press)

peterstreet wrote:
Too right and well done! and 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 !!

the Green Party objections are extremely valid in my opinion but other 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

peterstreet wrote:
Too right and well done! and 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 !!

the Green Party objections are extremely valid in my opinion but other 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

Sawday2 wrote:
O goody! Let's waste more money on an inquiry. That makes sense, not!
Look you sad people - you LOST - get over it and let's get these stores built that most of the population of the area want. Are you listening? We DO NOT want the delay or the expense of an inquiry. Just what is wrong with you?

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

peterstreet wrote:
Too right and well done! and 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 !!

the Green Party objections are extremely valid in my opinion but other 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

duffy wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
Too right and well done! and 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 !!

the Green Party objections are extremely valid in my opinion but other 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

yes let's just drag things out again and waste yet more money. It was passed by a very large majority and that should be the end of it now. Enough is enough.

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Jazzper wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

An inquiry is NOT necessary and a total waste of taxpayers money!

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

peterstreet wrote:

Jazzper wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

An inquiry is NOT necessary and a total waste of taxpayers money!

Don't you mean IN YOUR OPINION. we will see if the secretary of state agrees with you! and if he does not then their will be an enquiry which is what is needed IN MY OPINION!

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

peterstreet wrote:
I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

I'm sure YCFC are crying over your decision right this very minute over your non attendance.

Please tell me how badly the "honest" Adam Sinclair will be affected. What about those "honest" owners of Bettys and Barnitts. Don't forget the "honest" York dungeon...

peterstreet wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

I'm sure YCFC are crying over your decision right this very minute over your non attendance.

Please tell me how badly the "honest" Adam Sinclair will be affected. What about those "honest" owners of Bettys and Barnitts. Don't forget the "honest" York dungeon...

And their employees who might well be affected! have you forgotten them 99 or do they not matter? I believe the current posts from YCFC "fans" prove my point exactly, we have one suggesting an even bigger development for the clubs self interest BEFORE the thing is built, another resorting to bad language and insult and a third saying that the loss of a paying customer to a business dos not matter! COMMUNITY STADIUM!! some community, well off to work now bye folks.

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

That "great financial cost" is actually being provided by private investment though. Don't try and make this something it isn't. Yes York council will be putting in, is it two million? If this doesn't go ahead York council are already committed to moving the athletics track at a cost of circa £1m, so the net cost of building this stadium is about a million.

Also the York tax payer will benefit to the tune of around £3m per year in additional rates receipts. The "cost to the taxpayer" argument just doesn't stack up.

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:

peterstreet wrote:

The Great Buda wrote:
Once again the Campaign for Castleford rears its ugly head.

Those against this development are anti-jobs, anti-facilities for local, anti-community and anti-York.

more rubbish from the great Buda, speak truly man! people do have a right to their opinion on important matters such as MC2 and they have the same right as you to express their opinions! you talk cr&p

A few traders getting their knickers in a knott means the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard facilities for a City of this size?

Hardly fair is it; the Campaign for Castleford is Anti-York.

I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

TheTruthHurts wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Me too, Its important that the whole decision making process is scrutinised on this one. My email has also been sent

peterstreet wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
I am not a trader and what are these "sub standard facillities" and what on earth is the campaign for castleford? you do talk cr&p! Do you YCFC fans not realise what great damage you are doing your own football club by your attitudes and attacks on honest shopkeepers and their staff, Many people read these posts without contributing and I know many people who are disgusted! YCFC fans are simply demanding that a stadium is provided for a private business at great financial cost and inconvenience to York taxpayers. I have been to YCFC games many times but I can tell you this, NEVER AGAIN!

That "great financial cost" is actually being provided by private investment though. Don't try and make this something it isn't. Yes York council will be putting in, is it two million? If this doesn't go ahead York council are already committed to moving the athletics track at a cost of circa £1m, so the net cost of building this stadium is about a million.

Also the York tax payer will benefit to the tune of around £3m per year in additional rates receipts. The "cost to the taxpayer" argument just doesn't stack up.

Sorry 99 you are very selective in your calculations. What about the costs of dropping the LDF in order to justify the planning commitee decision ?not to mention the costs of a public enquiry if one is ordered and it goes against COYC? THE POTENTIAL COST OF THE MC2 DECISION ARE HORRENDOUS! not to mention the ongoing problems with traffic etc that will have to be dealt with,

Jazzper wrote:
Oh and bye the way I'm not interested in sport at all. but I would never criticize any one who is !

The Great Buda wrote:
I think peterstreet could do some with calm time. Some mood music, a good cup of tea and then maybe a good long think about how he's carrying on.

peterstreet wrote:
Hey sawday just exactly who is this we? and what evidence have you that a majority of people want this gross over developement ? as for wasting money! have you been following the news at all? how much money has the dropping of the LDF cost the York tax payer and that is only the start! and it is not a question of winning or losing,this is not a game! it is a question of what is right and what is wrong! The people who are obsessed with a relatively small football club together the Labour and Lib Dem Councillors have done this City a great diservice and that must be challanged in my view

1968expat wrote:
People on here are saying about what a small football team York City is and yes they are not the Manchesters of this world, but they are our team.
Question? York is a beautiful city, when the men from the opposition fans come to see the match or ladies!! do they bring along their partners for the weekend, who may go sightseeing or shopping in York and in the evening maybe go to the Thatre Royal and a meal afterwards, the answer is yes so it is not just the football team who gains it is the whole city.

speaks99 wrote:
Two can play at that game:

If you really think that this development is a good idea then email

eric.pickles@communi

ties.gsi.gov.uk

Remember - this development will bring in 1000 new jobs to the local economy, plus 200 construction roles.

It safeguards the future of not only York City Football club, North Yorkshire's only professional sporting team, but also the York City Knights and York Athletics.
It will raise over £3m in rates payable EVERY YEAR.
It will allow shoppers the choice to shop in York rather than go to surrounding towns and cities for their "John Lewis" fix.
It shows York is "open for business" to other developers.

This decision should be left in the hands of local councils, as per the Governments own "localism" agenda, bringing decentralisation to our city.

Also since this development is not a matter of national importance, then this should not be refered to the secretary of state.

You see peterstreet, we can both continue with this rubbish, or we can both agree that anyone who wants to object or support can do so from previous posts.

Sarah York wrote:
If any reader would like to ridicule the minority and ask for it not to be called in after 1,000s spoke in favour and won a local vote 11-4 thus creating new community facilities and jobs, something which the national government aren't going to reject write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi



Alternatively you could now e mail the Secretary of State direct at eric.pickles@communi ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your support along with most others and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!
If any reader would like to ridicule the minority and ask for it not to be called in after 1,000s spoke in favour and won a local vote 11-4 thus creating new community facilities and jobs, something which the national government aren't going to reject write to the; Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber Lateral 8 City Walk Leeds LS11 9AT

Or e mail; yhenquiries@goyh.gsi



Alternatively you could now e mail the Secretary of State direct at eric.pickles@communi ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your support along with most others and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

TheTruthHurts wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
Two can play at that game:

If you really think that this development is a good idea then email

eric.pickles@communi


ties.gsi.gov.uk

Remember - this development will bring in 1000 new jobs to the local economy, plus 200 construction roles.

It safeguards the future of not only York City Football club, North Yorkshire's only professional sporting team, but also the York City Knights and York Athletics.
It will raise over £3m in rates payable EVERY YEAR.
It will allow shoppers the choice to shop in York rather than go to surrounding towns and cities for their "John Lewis" fix.
It shows York is "open for business" to other developers.

This decision should be left in the hands of local councils, as per the Governments own "localism" agenda, bringing decentralisation to our city.

Also since this development is not a matter of national importance, then this should not be refered to the secretary of state.

You see peterstreet, we can both continue with this rubbish, or we can both agree that anyone who wants to object or support can do so from previous posts.

I think statements like these are what put me off supporting the thing.

1000 new Jobs! This maybe true but doesnt the report say that 600 jobs will be lost so a net gain of only 400 jobs.
'
£3million rent EVERY YEAR..... the way both our football and rugby clubs have been run in recent history would suggest that this too is far from guaranteed.
'
You even say at the bottom of your post that it is rubbish :-)

peterstreet wrote:
Ah you naughty people! sneaking em in when you thought I was'nt watching!

Just a question though; HOW CAN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALLREADY BEEN GRANTED?

The cival servants will die laughing!
wakey wakey! you should change your post names to simple simon!

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
Ah you naughty people! sneaking em in when you thought I was'nt watching!

Just a question though; HOW CAN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALLREADY BEEN GRANTED?

The cival servants will die laughing!
wakey wakey! you should change your post names to simple simon!

No ones asking for something that already been granted, we are lobbying that it shouldn't get called in - two very different things.

Perhaps you should be the one called simple simon...

Part of the response email states: "The secretary of state only calls in applications normally where issues of national importance arise"... National Importance - your having a laugh simple simon!

pedalling paul wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
Ah you naughty people! sneaking em in when you thought I was'nt watching!

Just a question though; HOW CAN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALLREADY BEEN GRANTED?

The cival servants will die laughing!
wakey wakey! you should change your post names to simple simon!

No ones asking for something that already been granted, we are lobbying that it shouldn't get called in - two very different things.

Perhaps you should be the one called simple simon...

Part of the response email states: "The secretary of state only calls in applications normally where issues of national importance arise"... National Importance - your having a laugh simple simon!

Hands up anyone who knows what a "cival" servant is.....and once again we see the possessive pronoun "your" being misused in the response instead of "you're" (abbreviated from "you are.") Poor spelling.....

TheTruthHurts wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Me too, Its important that the whole decision making process is scrutinised on this one. My email has also been sent

pedalling paul wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

peterstreet wrote:
Ah you naughty people! sneaking em in when you thought I was'nt watching!

Just a question though; HOW CAN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS ALLREADY BEEN GRANTED?

The cival servants will die laughing!
wakey wakey! you should change your post names to simple simon!

No ones asking for something that already been granted, we are lobbying that it shouldn't get called in - two very different things.

Perhaps you should be the one called simple simon...

Part of the response email states: "The secretary of state only calls in applications normally where issues of national importance arise"... National Importance - your having a laugh simple simon!

Hands up anyone who knows what a "cival" servant is.....and once again we see the possessive pronoun "your" being misused in the response instead of "you're" (abbreviated from "you are.") Poor spelling.....

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I very much doubt that they could afford to pull out, as their costs incurred so far would make withdrawal not an option.

Rumour have it that CoYC have already spent £750,000 and Oakgate will have spent much more.

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

No - perhaps bad wording, but if John Lewis pulled out then it would probably cause a collapse, which is my biggest fear for this. JL recently pulled out of a venture in Sheffield (??).
Lobbying will go on for both sides. The C4Y will be lobbying like mad to Eric Pickles to get this called in. At least every email sent to him is a tangible reminder that by no means is this a one sided issue, and for every person opposing the development there is at least one person or more for the development.

Whether or not this has an impact on Eric Pickles decision I don't know. I am simply following advise from Steve Galloway, who made this suggestion to me.

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

No - perhaps bad wording, but if John Lewis pulled out then it would probably cause a collapse, which is my biggest fear for this. JL recently pulled out of a venture in Sheffield (??).
Lobbying will go on for both sides. The C4Y will be lobbying like mad to Eric Pickles to get this called in. At least every email sent to him is a tangible reminder that by no means is this a one sided issue, and for every person opposing the development there is at least one person or more for the development.

Whether or not this has an impact on Eric Pickles decision I don't know. I am simply following advise from Steve Galloway, who made this suggestion to me.

1localtrader wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

No - perhaps bad wording, but if John Lewis pulled out then it would probably cause a collapse, which is my biggest fear for this. JL recently pulled out of a venture in Sheffield (??).
Lobbying will go on for both sides. The C4Y will be lobbying like mad to Eric Pickles to get this called in. At least every email sent to him is a tangible reminder that by no means is this a one sided issue, and for every person opposing the development there is at least one person or more for the development.

Whether or not this has an impact on Eric Pickles decision I don't know. I am simply following advise from Steve Galloway, who made this suggestion to me.

OOPS! Whats up speaks99, cant you think for yourself? Isnt all this a Steve Galloway plan inherited by the Labour Council? My God, Galloway strikes again!! did somebody mention the Barbican? I think we have another expensive farce on our hands

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I very much doubt that they could afford to pull out, as their costs incurred so far would make withdrawal not an option. Rumour have it that CoYC have already spent £750,000 and Oakgate will have spent much more.

John Lewis can still pull out, which would make the entire project collapse. Was it Sheffield where it has happened recently?

speaks99 wrote:

1localtrader wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

No - perhaps bad wording, but if John Lewis pulled out then it would probably cause a collapse, which is my biggest fear for this. JL recently pulled out of a venture in Sheffield (??).
Lobbying will go on for both sides. The C4Y will be lobbying like mad to Eric Pickles to get this called in. At least every email sent to him is a tangible reminder that by no means is this a one sided issue, and for every person opposing the development there is at least one person or more for the development.

Whether or not this has an impact on Eric Pickles decision I don't know. I am simply following advise from Steve Galloway, who made this suggestion to me.

OOPS! Whats up speaks99, cant you think for yourself? Isnt all this a Steve Galloway plan inherited by the Labour Council? My God, Galloway strikes again!! did somebody mention the Barbican? I think we have another expensive farce on our hands

Erm - no I actually emailed a politician who I knew was in favour of this development and asked him what he felt the best course of action would be. Where's the big deal in that. If you're trying to wind me up you'll have to work a little bit harder. Troll.

TheTruthHurts wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

1localtrader wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote:
An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it.

Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question.

How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse?

This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development.

It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable.

It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision.

I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

No - perhaps bad wording, but if John Lewis pulled out then it would probably cause a collapse, which is my biggest fear for this. JL recently pulled out of a venture in Sheffield (??).
Lobbying will go on for both sides. The C4Y will be lobbying like mad to Eric Pickles to get this called in. At least every email sent to him is a tangible reminder that by no means is this a one sided issue, and for every person opposing the development there is at least one person or more for the development.

Whether or not this has an impact on Eric Pickles decision I don't know. I am simply following advise from Steve Galloway, who made this suggestion to me.

OOPS! Whats up speaks99, cant you think for yourself? Isnt all this a Steve Galloway plan inherited by the Labour Council? My God, Galloway strikes again!! did somebody mention the Barbican? I think we have another expensive farce on our hands

Erm - no I actually emailed a politician who I knew was in favour of this development and asked him what he felt the best course of action would be. Where's the big deal in that. If you're trying to wind me up you'll have to work a little bit harder. Troll.

Ha I had aired my suspicions on a previous thread and now its revealed... Speaks99 is another puppet with Steve Galloways hand up his.....

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I very much doubt that they could afford to pull out, as their costs incurred so far would make withdrawal not an option. Rumour have it that CoYC have already spent £750,000 and Oakgate will have spent much more.

John Lewis can still pull out, which would make the entire project collapse. Was it Sheffield where it has happened recently?

I doubt that Oakgate would have come this far without a conditional contract with John Lewis, which would reduce the risk of, or entirely eliminate their withdrawal.

TerryYork wrote:
Anyone notice how Peterstreet and Mr Crabtree have the exact same multiple post problems? Talk about showing you're the same person. One person posting with multiple usernames. How pathetic.

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

BioLogic wrote:

sharpish wrote: An Inquiry is essential so that the decision can be scrutinised independently - without political interference!

Here Here - Absolutely necessary, and completely right that this decision should be scrutinised non-politically and with regard to the actual policies and advice of those qualified to provide it. Email to Mr Pickles has been sent

Honest question. How would you feel if this is vindicated by an enquiry. Given a green light, but in the meantime those private investors pull out making the whole thing collapse? This was exactly the situation we had with the Barbican. The only people who lost out were the residents.

I don't see that happening, Oakgate have too much invested now, but it is possible, would be a bit tough on YCFC but thats what happens when you rely on others to provide the funds for your business development. It doesn't really compare with the Barbican. That was all funded by a large development of flats which no one would now want, so the site became unviable. It does tickle me that people are sending emails asking for the application NOT to be called in. Do they realise that there is no need to campaign for this, it isn't something that can be influenced! Once the secretary of state is aware that there are concerns relating to a development then he will assess the application process to see if there are any problems or issues that warrant the issue receiving an independent public hearing. If they exist (which it's fair to say in this case they do) they it is likely to be called in. Someone may yet request a Judicial Review of the decision. I do wish some of those that comment on here would actually try and gain an understanding of a topic before they spout on it. Like them or not Mr Laverack and Mr Crabtree et al do actually know what they are talking about!

PhilipInYork wrote:
Oh dear, BUSTED! Check out the double post problem, this time suffered by Mr Crabtree. Same problem, same style of writing and same pathetic drivel as Peterstreet.

BioLogic wrote:
What the hell is the Campaign for Castleford!!

PhilipInYork wrote:
Oh dear, BUSTED! Check out the double post problem, this time suffered by Mr Crabtree. Same problem, same style of writing and same pathetic drivel as Peterstreet.

TerryYork wrote:

PhilipInYork wrote: Oh dear, BUSTED! Check out the double post problem, this time suffered by Mr Crabtree. Same problem, same style of writing and same pathetic drivel as Peterstreet.

Noticed that too earlier. And one of his usernames got all upset. Maybe he'll use the other usernames to console the fact he's been caught out. That's the Campaign For Castleford all over. A joke.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
Let's get back to the article - should the applications be called in for an inquiry or not?

Yes they should. Why?

Because it is a major project in direct Contravention of local and national planning policies.

Because the handling (mishandling) of the applications raises serious questions about the integrity of the decision.

speaks99 wrote:
I would be interested to see how anyone can describe this development as an issue of national importance. As such it should not be called in.

Sawday2 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
I would be interested to see how anyone can describe this development as an issue of national importance. As such it should not be called in.

Here Here!!!

Overproof wrote:
It isn't the case that C4Y represents all city traders (just a few) and it isn't the case that all city traders are against this development.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Sawday2 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
I would be interested to see how anyone can describe this development as an issue of national importance. As such it should not be called in.

Here Here!!!

Who said it was ?

S&P said it contravened national policies, which it does.

Since when was 'speaks99' an authority on planning law ? Thought she was an accountant ?

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Ooh, look at that - S&P and Crabtree posted simultaneously - that's clever, they are supposed to be the same person ? !!!

Sawday2 wrote:

sperare e coraggio wrote:
Let's get back to the article - should the applications be called in for an inquiry or not?

Yes they should. Why?

Because it is a major project in direct Contravention of local and national planning policies.

Because the handling (mishandling) of the applications raises serious questions about the integrity of the decision.

No-one is going to die because some out of date policy has been democratically overturned.

The majority of the council, residents and vistors all want to see this development. Why should a few mouldy 'Greens' dictate the way forward. Come on all supporters tell Eric Pickles and co exactly why this development SHOULD get the go ahead then we can concentrate on something more important - healthcare, transport infrastructure, education for example - instead of getting all het up over a couple of shops.

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Ooh, look at that - S&P and Crabtree posted simultaneously - that's clever, they are supposed to be the same person ? !!!

Hang on a minute!! You accuse others of having multiple sign-ins on that very premise!! Have you no shame?

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Sawday2 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
I would be interested to see how anyone can describe this development as an issue of national importance. As such it should not be called in.

Here Here!!!

Who said it was ?

S&P said it contravened national policies, which it does.

Since when was 'speaks99' an authority on planning law ? Thought she was an accountant ?

I wasn't discussing planning law. I was discussing the requirements for a planning decision to be called in, as quoted by correspondence from the office of Eric Pickles.

"The secretary of state only calls in applications normally where issues of national importance arise"

"The government is clear that localism and decentralisation are at the heart of their planning agenda and the general approach of the Secretary of State for communities and local government is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of authorities on planning matters."

By the way - I'm a he!!

" I couldn't get past the first chapter of "The Road". Having just had my second child when I started to read it, that book turned me into a blubbering mess...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Speaks99, the SoS doesn't just call in matters of national importance.

speaks99 wrote:
Funny how the most innocuous of comments can be misconstrued!! I meant that my second child had just been born... I can see how that would give you that impression though!!

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote: Ooh, look at that - S&P and Crabtree posted simultaneously - that's clever, they are supposed to be the same person ? !!!

Hang on a minute!! You accuse others of having multiple sign-ins on that very premise!! Have you no shame?

I accept that you and speaks99 are not the same person, but, I still have suspicions about tommyinyork, PhillipInYork, bjb, jimmy120883, Yorkie41 and Tug Job - I bet some of these have two or more logins. If I can be accused of this without any proof, then I am within my rights to do as my accusers.

speaks99 wrote:
There's only one Mr Crabtree, One Mr Crabtree, One Mr Craaaabbtree. There's only one Mr Crabtree.

bjb wrote:
peterstreet
Crabtree
Septimious
Scarlet Pimpernel

When it is so obvious it is all the work of one person! The press should get a grip of multi usernames.

If petecrabseptnel is restricted to one log in there would only be one objector commenting here.

I only have one and don't need more than one to express my views.

speaks99 wrote:
There's only one Mr Crabtree, One Mr Crabtree, One Mr Craaaabbtree. There's only one Mr Crabtree.

Even AndyD wrote:

speaks99 wrote: There's only one Mr Crabtree, One Mr Crabtree, One Mr Craaaabbtree. There's only one Mr Crabtree.

Think we can get him for our side in the pre-season transfer window? A bit of an unknown quantity, but no doubting his stamina! Go on Mr C - you know we are the good guys. :-)

speaks99 wrote:
Funny how the most innocuous of comments can be misconstrued!! I meant that my second child had just been born... I can see how that would give you that impression though!!

Tug job wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

speaks99 wrote: There's only one Mr Crabtree, One Mr Crabtree, One Mr Craaaabbtree. There's only one Mr Crabtree.

Think we can get him for our side in the pre-season transfer window? A bit of an unknown quantity, but no doubting his stamina! Go on Mr C - you know we are the good guys. :-)

He's certainly got the stamina, but would he pass the medical -bet he's got high blood pressure!

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Tug job wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

speaks99 wrote: There's only one Mr Crabtree, One Mr Crabtree, One Mr Craaaabbtree. There's only one Mr Crabtree.

Think we can get him for our side in the pre-season transfer window? A bit of an unknown quantity, but no doubting his stamina! Go on Mr C - you know we are the good guys. :-)

He's certainly got the stamina, but would he pass the medical -bet he's got high blood pressure!

No problem with the Bp, plenty of exercise and chillaxing ! Must say, that I'm impressed with the bonhomie and good wishes from you City fans. You deserve better than to be used as a political football by certain factions. Good luck to you and your team for the future. I have no grudges against the team or the fans, despite sometimes being on the end of some unfair criticism.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
The stadium is in the wrong place. It is only there because that is where the money on offer directs it. Following PLANNING criteria it would never be there because of all the problems of traffic and remoteness from the city centre and railway station.
If the ground is enlarged to increase capacity in future all those problems become worse.
The ideal site for a new stadium would be the waste ground teardrop central. Next door to the station and bags of room for cars and coaches. But of course those landowners are not offering millions towards the construction of a stadium there. However, the fact remains that in PLANNING terms the Monks Cross site is fundamentally flawed and this article is all about whether or not that decision should be called in for examination by a planning inspector.
OF COURSE IT SHOULD?
Apart from anything else we would then have planning barristers able to cross-examine officers and councillors to find out exactly what happened to those reports and exactly why there was no formal recommendation. Who authorised the gagging of officers and who is responsible for the following fiasco which led to the collapse of eight years work on the LDF core strategy.
The Green Party Leader is to be congratulated for referring the matter to the Secretary of State. He has done the right thing.

jimmy120883 wrote:
Speaks is this the email you refer too from Mr Pickles office regarding the calling in?


http://i1148.photobu

cket.com/albums/o562

/outspreview7/appli.

jpg

sperare e coraggio wrote:
The stadium is in the wrong place. It is only there because that is where the money on offer directs it. Following PLANNING criteria it would never be there because of all the problems of traffic and remoteness from the city centre and railway station.
If the ground is enlarged to increase capacity in future all those problems become worse.
The ideal site for a new stadium would be the waste ground teardrop central. Next door to the station and bags of room for cars and coaches. But of course those landowners are not offering millions towards the construction of a stadium there. However, the fact remains that in PLANNING terms the Monks Cross site is fundamentally flawed and this article is all about whether or not that decision should be called in for examination by a planning inspector.
OF COURSE IT SHOULD?
Apart from anything else we would then have planning barristers able to cross-examine officers and councillors to find out exactly what happened to those reports and exactly why there was no formal recommendation. Who authorised the gagging of officers and who is responsible for the following fiasco which led to the collapse of eight years work on the LDF core strategy.
The Green Party Leader is to be congratulated for referring the matter to the Secretary of State. He has done the right thing.

peterstreet wrote:

sperare e coraggio wrote:
The stadium is in the wrong place. It is only there because that is where the money on offer directs it. Following PLANNING criteria it would never be there because of all the problems of traffic and remoteness from the city centre and railway station.
If the ground is enlarged to increase capacity in future all those problems become worse.
The ideal site for a new stadium would be the waste ground teardrop central. Next door to the station and bags of room for cars and coaches. But of course those landowners are not offering millions towards the construction of a stadium there. However, the fact remains that in PLANNING terms the Monks Cross site is fundamentally flawed and this article is all about whether or not that decision should be called in for examination by a planning inspector.
OF COURSE IT SHOULD?
Apart from anything else we would then have planning barristers able to cross-examine officers and councillors to find out exactly what happened to those reports and exactly why there was no formal recommendation. Who authorised the gagging of officers and who is responsible for the following fiasco which led to the collapse of eight years work on the LDF core strategy.
The Green Party Leader is to be congratulated for referring the matter to the Secretary of State. He has done the right thing.

Hear, hear! Not to mention the affect on business’s in the traditional shopping areas, nobody but a fool could imagine that chipping away at traditional commerce would not eventually have a catastrophic effect. Criticism of the Monks Cross decision is not anti YCFC, even though personally, I will not be attending any more games, I wish the club well. It is about the issues so ably outlined in the quoted post. I hope an enquiry is ordered, I hope the MC2 decision is overturned, I also apologise for the tone of some of my recent posts, I decided to play you YCFC fans at your own game. The way you reacted greatly illuminated your collective character and showed the attitude of the terrace Yob! Finally, may I suggest that you stop damaging your clubs reputation by your behaviour? Please treat posters like Mr Crabtree with the respect they deserve, if there is no enquiry you will have MC2, providing nothing unforeseen goes wrong, If there is an enquiry then we will all have to abide by its decision like it or not, the ignorant insult and bile is not necessary and does your case no good at all.

Even AndyD wrote:
Peter - the majority of the insults on this thread come from you. Mr C. seems quite happy with YCFC fans to me, if you read his comments above. But your apology is welcome - now lets move on.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
Speaks99 you are wrong.
The teardrop site is available. The freehold owners have been looking for someone to buy/develop it for years. They gave up actively marketing it when potential bidders were put off by the high costs of meeting the planning requirements. Nevertheless it can be bought any time.
As for the additional cost to York taxpayers that is the whole point of this issue. The Monks Cross application was approved NOT because of planning reasons but because money was on offer. But a planning application is supposed to be determined on planning grounds and not on financial sweeteners.
You just do not seem to be able to grasp the fundamental principles of the planning system.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
Speaks99 you are totally wrong.

Most development sites are not owned by one individual or one firm. Monks Cross and The Castle both rely on assets owned by others, including City of York Council. Germany Beck has two owners. Other sites also have multiple interests. This is not a reason to dismiss these sites as inappropriate for redevelopment.
The infra structure of York Teardrop is of course expensive - whether it be paid for by taxpayers or a private enterprise coming in to redevelop the whole site. And you presume that the Teardrop must have a retail element. Not necessarily so - and even if it did it is still a city centre brownfield site and not an out of town bit of green open space like Monks Cross.
You fail to grasp the issue. The applications at Monks Cross are supposed to be determined on planning grounds and not the amount of money being offered towards a stadium. You refer to getting owners together "in the short term" because this is important to you and other football fanatics, but it is not a genuine planning consideration.
You continue in your deluded belief that the Monks Cross applications in general and the community stadium in particular are there to save YCFC. They are not. That is not the purpose of the planning system and saving a private football club from oblivion is not a criterion for determining a planning application no matter how passionate you and others feel about the matter.
Town planning is supposed to "do what it says on the tin". That is the proper planning of towns and cities. Putting the right thing in the right place. If the monetary consideration (bribe) and the plight of the football club are taken out of the deliberations -which they should because they are not planning matters - then no professional planner would ever accept that the community stadium should be built at Monks Cross. It is contrary to all accepted policies and doctrine.
That is why the decision to approve Monks Cross was fundamentally flawed and should be looked at by an outside Inspector.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
Come off it Speaks99 you have been banging on about the need to save YCFC for months. Go back over all your posts on all articles and letters and see what you have been saying.
This is a planning matter tied up with an associated issue about the conduct of the local authority in dealing with a controversial application.
The article is all about the calling-in of that decision for scrutiny by an Appointed Inspector and then the Secretary of State himself.
Your desperation to have a community stadium built to (hopefully) secure the future the football team you support is NOT a valid reason to deny that call-in.
Your comment that I need to "stop drinking" is unwarranted abusive and malicious. It shows you have lost the argument when you start to be offensive. Unlike you I do a great deal of "thinking" before I comment and not one drop of alcohol was in my system when those blogs were added. The simple fact is Mr Speaks that I know what I am talking about but you don't.

speaks99 wrote:
Is this matter of national importance? No it's not. Should the government follow their own localism agenda? Yes they should. Therefore this decision should not be called in - under the terms and directives of the SoS himself... Is this decision the best thing for the residents and city of York as a whole? Yes it is. Matter closed! (in my head anyway!!)

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
Is this matter of national importance? No it's not. Should the government follow their own localism agenda? Yes they should. Therefore this decision should not be called in - under the terms and directives of the SoS himself... Is this decision the best thing for the residents and city of York as a whole? Yes it is. Matter closed! (in my head anyway!!)

You are cherry-picking generic headline policies, to suit your argument. If you think that you know better than S&P and Eric Pickles, then that is up to you. The matter is not closed until the Secretary of State decrees it, and based on S&P's superior knowledge and experience in this field, I think he will have the last laugh on this affair.

sperare e coraggio wrote:
SPEAKS99

The matter has been closed (in your head anyway) from day one.
That is because you have a closed mind. You desperately want this community stadium so much you refuse to accept the clear and irrefutable evidence that the decision was not in the best interest of the city as a whole; and also that it was achieved through questionable practices of a type unprecedented in the history of planning applications in York.

This matter is not closed at all. There will be far reaching repercussions as a result of this fiasco - whether or not the cases are called-in.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
Is this matter of national importance? No it's not. Should the government follow their own localism agenda? Yes they should. Therefore this decision should not be called in - under the terms and directives of the SoS himself... Is this decision the best thing for the residents and city of York as a whole? Yes it is. Matter closed! (in my head anyway!!)

You are cherry-picking generic headline policies, to suit your argument. If you think that you know better than S&P and Eric Pickles, then that is up to you. The matter is not closed until the Secretary of State decrees it, and based on S&P's superior knowledge and experience in this field, I think he will have the last laugh on this affair.

Taken from:
House of Commons Library
Calling in of Planning Applications
Standard Note:
SN/SC/930
Last updated:
25 May 2012
Author:
Christopher Barclay
Science and Environment

......On 30 March 2009, the Labour Government published a new direction stating the type of application for which the Secretary of State has to be consulted:
This Direction shall apply in relation to any application for planning permission which –
(a) is for Green Belt development, development outside town centres, World Heritage Site development, playing field development or flood risk area development; and
(b) is received by a planning authority on or after 20 April 2009.
More detailed definitions follow:
5.(1) For the purposes of this Direction, “development outside town centres” means development which consists of or includes retail, leisure or office use, and which –
(a) is to be carried out on land which is edge-of-centre, out-of-centre or out-of-town;
and
(b) is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in relation to the area in which the development is to be carried out; and
(c) consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is:
(i) 5,000 square metres or more;

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99,

I would draw your attention to the following:

Taken from:
House of Commons Library
Calling in of Planning Applications
Standard Note:
SN/SC/930
Last updated:
25 May 2012
Author:
Christopher Barclay
Science and Environment

......On 30 March 2009, the Labour Government published a new direction stating the type of application for which the Secretary of State has to be consulted:
This Direction shall apply in relation to any application for planning permission which –
(a) is for Green Belt development, development outside town centres, World Heritage Site development, playing field development or flood risk area development; and
(b) is received by a planning authority on or after 20 April 2009.
More detailed definitions follow:
5.(1) For the purposes of this Direction, “development outside town centres” means development which consists of or includes retail, leisure or office use, and which –
(a) is to be carried out on land which is edge-of-centre, out-of-centre or out-of-town;
and
(b) is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in relation to the area in which the development is to be carried out; and
(c) consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is:
(i) 5,000 square metres or more;

sperare e coraggio wrote:
MR ANDY D

I base my assessment of a closed mind on the many blogs put on here by people like you and Speaks who have from the outset decided that this Stadium is what you want and no amount of evidence will convince you it should not be allowed.
Even the applicants and the Council accept there will be a detrimental impact on retailing in the city centre; the only argument being about how severe or long lasting.
As for the road network and traffic and parking issues that has never been properly addressed and remains a serious problem - more so if the stadium is increased in capacity.
The real objection to these decisions is the fact that long standing rules have been torn up and malpractice on a wide scale has been introduced to achieve it. And why? Because millions of pounds have been offered as a financial incentive. That's why. Nothing to do with planning considerations. In planning terms the balance of argument is overwhelmingly for a refusal - and the case officer would have said so if his superior officers and political masters hadn't bullied him into keeping quiet.
There needs to be an Inquiry to get to the bottom of it all. If your case is so strong you have got nothing to worry about, have you?

Even AndyD wrote:
Presumably we will hear this week, its been 4 weeks since planning was granted?

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:
speaks99,

I would draw your attention to the following:

Taken from:
House of Commons Library
Calling in of Planning Applications
Standard Note:
SN/SC/930
Last updated:
25 May 2012
Author:
Christopher Barclay
Science and Environment

......On 30 March 2009, the Labour Government published a new direction stating the type of application for which the Secretary of State has to be consulted:
This Direction shall apply in relation to any application for planning permission which –
(a) is for Green Belt development, development outside town centres, World Heritage Site development, playing field development or flood risk area development; and
(b) is received by a planning authority on or after 20 April 2009.
More detailed definitions follow:
5.(1) For the purposes of this Direction, “development outside town centres” means development which consists of or includes retail, leisure or office use, and which –
(a) is to be carried out on land which is edge-of-centre, out-of-centre or out-of-town;
and
(b) is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in relation to the area in which the development is to be carried out; and
(c) consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is:
(i) 5,000 square metres or more;

Hmmmm.

Like I said, all I'm doing is quoting the response from the office of the SoS. They didn't need to pass on this information in the response, they could have just sent a standard thank you reply, but they didn't.

There's no point debating the issue as its out of our hands anyway, what will be will be.

speaks99 wrote:

sperare e coraggio wrote:
MR ANDY D

I base my assessment of a closed mind on the many blogs put on here by people like you and Speaks who have from the outset decided that this Stadium is what you want and no amount of evidence will convince you it should not be allowed.
Even the applicants and the Council accept there will be a detrimental impact on retailing in the city centre; the only argument being about how severe or long lasting.
As for the road network and traffic and parking issues that has never been properly addressed and remains a serious problem - more so if the stadium is increased in capacity.
The real objection to these decisions is the fact that long standing rules have been torn up and malpractice on a wide scale has been introduced to achieve it. And why? Because millions of pounds have been offered as a financial incentive. That's why. Nothing to do with planning considerations. In planning terms the balance of argument is overwhelmingly for a refusal - and the case officer would have said so if his superior officers and political masters hadn't bullied him into keeping quiet.
There needs to be an Inquiry to get to the bottom of it all. If your case is so strong you have got nothing to worry about, have you?

So where is this "evidence" because I've yet to see any compelling "evidence"...

The closest you've got is the driver Jonas report, which, in terms of pure numbers, is a heck of a lot closer to the Oakgates assessment than the GVA Grimley assessment, bought by C4Y.

Admit it. There is no "evidence".