Tories in call for community stadium inquiry (From York Press)

'York's planning policy'.
'York's road network'.

The Tories have proved within their own argument this is a local York issue not a national one for call in.

wasn't there a Torie mention of changing the north-west side of the York ring-road (the single carriageway section) at some stage?? what's happened to that?

Sir Alex wrote:
'York's planning policy'.
'York's road network'.

The Tories have proved within their own argument this is a local York issue not a national one for call in.

Sir Alex,who are you trying to convince exactly? Whats that floating by? O, its only a straw!

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision thoroughly examined
e mail the Secretary of State direct at;
eric.pickles@communi
ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your objections, 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 committee 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.

I know it wouldn't take long peterstreet.

Tedious.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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





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


ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

The Tories are a joke. Cameron on a National level is telling us all about how proud we should be in Olympic year, and blubbering Boris harping on about this proud event. Yet, our own tories are wanting to kill sport in the local area. Its pathetic. Get over it and concentrate on other issues ! Get the Stadium built, create jobs and stop morons like Sinclair et al from whinging all the time. There's enough idiots out there to buy your pot mugs, and the City Centre will never be affected. Get the parking charges down for a start. Come on Crabtree, time to bore us all !

peterstreet wrote:

Sir Alex wrote:
'York's planning policy'.
'York's road network'.

The Tories have proved within their own argument this is a local York issue not a national one for call in.

Sir Alex,who are you trying to convince exactly? Whats that floating by? O, its only a straw!

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision thoroughly examined
e mail the Secretary of State direct at;
eric.pickles@communi

ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your objections, 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 committee 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.

just 19,000 cut n paste jobs and you will have matched the 20,000 anti progress flyers handed out.

boring very boring

Peterstreet give a rest your so pathetic. The vote was to go to MX2 so you go running to Pickles. No-one voted for a coalition goverment but we have one. Wheres your proof buiness will suffer in the city centre, its only here say. Your saying all the tourist wont shop now in the city centre they will go to the attraction of John Lewis, give me a break. Maybe another option could be for council to reduce buisnesss rent in city centre as this more of deterant for buisness not the MX2.

I dont like The Mcgill Family. They aren't even from YORK. And I don't want the stadium at Monks Cross. That will kill the club.

Although not a Tory fan, I do find myself agreeing with their course of action on this issue......

Rogue84 recalls a mention of "doing something" with the single carriageway York bypass. Presumably he refers to the A1237.

I heard a whisper this week that full dualling costs for this road may now be approaching the £1bn mark. No longer a Highways Agency road, so Govt. cannot directly fund any changes. CoYC would have to bid competitively from whatever "pots of money" Govt make available to Local Authorities.

Perhaps the true cost of dualling has escaped some commentators....

who are ya wrote:
Peterstreet give a rest your so pathetic. The vote was to go to MX2 so you go running to Pickles. No-one voted for a coalition goverment but we have one. Wheres your proof buiness will suffer in the city centre, its only here say. Your saying all the tourist wont shop now in the city centre they will go to the attraction of John Lewis, give me a break. Maybe another option could be for council to reduce buisnesss rent in city centre as this more of deterant for buisness not the MX2.

Once again we have to contend with misuse of the possessive pronoun "Your. "
For the information of "who are ya" the correct spelling is "you're" i.e. an abbreviation of "you are." With your other spelling mistakes eg buisnesss I can only give you 6/10.

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Giving people examples of what to write in there objection, sounding slightly desperate to me also if people want to genuinley object im sure they can come up with there own reasons get with the times and give up your ridiculous campaign!!

GUMBO2012

Still awaiting a response for why you don't like the McGills, and why the move will kill the Football Club ?

pedantic pi**pot pedalling paul always has to pipe up and stick his neb in even when he s got nothing constructive to say.this objection should be kicked out before more time and money is wasted.think of the residents of york for a change and crack on with the development.

"Goes against planning Policy"!!!......"Wil
l cause Severe Harm"......They need to give their head a shake..........they are only trying to make a fuss to try and win over voters.............I wonder if the boot was on the other foot the leader of York City Council was a Tory they would be all for the new development!!.......
.I will never vote for the Tories again!!...........My Family will never vote for the Tories again!!.........My friends have confirmed they never have or never will vote for the Tories again and I personally..........
.....will try to convince as many colleagues at the largest employer in York to never vote for the Tories again. Not that they do anyway!

Although it will never get reported in The Press, the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition have made representations to Pickles asking for the local decision to be endorsed.

It should all be on the Communities and Local Government web site shortly.

Expect an early decision on the call in. Following review of procedures last year, the Department is targeted to respond more promptly to call in requests.

In my opinion if this scheme is turned down, the Conservatives in York will never be forgiven.

I think the Press has been a bit one sided in reporting those against rather than for. The Lib Dems have been very fair and well spoken for the project. The majority of 11 to 4 was pretty conclusive and the Tories/Tree Huggers are clearly sore losers, but seem to have the ear of The Press.

One of the benefits of moving the stadium out of town will be the great benefit to local residents around Bootham Crescent as all the matchday traffic will disappear and the residents can have their streets back.......

I'm ashamed I vote conservative. What a joke our Tory councillors are. At national level we have David Cameron pleading with big business to invest in the economy and create jobs and here we have our pathetic Conservatives trying to stop it. The suggestion that the development will take millions of pounds from city centre traders is utter rubbish. Remember what these same morons said when York City centre was pedestrianised, when Monks Cross was first developed, when the Fulford outlet was built and of course Clifton Moor. York will become a ghost town was the cry! It hasn't happened and it never will. York as a whole has to compete with places like Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle. I, like many other people, use all the shopping venues mentioned above and this includes the city centre and will continue to do so. For god's sake shut up moaning and let's get the development built.

Conservative old boys brigade attempting to stop progress again. Its about time sport in York got some backing and York progress as an expanding city attracting as big as an investment as this and job creation would be crazy to miss out.

Conservative old boys brigade attempting to stop progress again. Its about time sport in York got some backing and York progress as an expanding city attracting as big as an investment as this and job creation would be crazy to miss out.

walwynwasgod wrote:
The Tories are a joke. Cameron on a National level is telling us all about how proud we should be in Olympic year, and blubbering Boris harping on about this proud event. Yet, our own tories are wanting to kill sport in the local area. Its pathetic. Get over it and concentrate on other issues ! Get the Stadium built, create jobs and stop morons like Sinclair et al from whinging all the time. There's enough idiots out there to buy your pot mugs, and the City Centre will never be affected. Get the parking charges down for a start. Come on Crabtree, time to bore us all !

It's not about sport, it's about playing by the rules. York Council did not. The Tories and many other York people who have not succumbed to a bribe in return for this questionable planning decision, are concerned that the Council have broken the rules that apply to all. It is only right and proper that this is scrutinised by the government. Their decision is the one that will count, so please accept it.

GUMBO2012 wrote:
I dont like The Mcgill Family. They aren't even from YORK. And I don't want the stadium at Monks Cross. That will kill the club.

You are an idiot Gumbo.....
If you don't believe the McGills are from York or believe in the club then you had better read this article from the archives....
http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/archive/2003/
05/06/York+Archive/7
908252.The_great_goa
l_in_Sophie_s_life/

It's a well known fact that a certain Tory councillor does not like the McGills and the same councillor has gone on record as saying Douglas Craig was good for York City! It appears therefore that this has become a personal vendetta against the club and has nothing to do with the York economy, planning process or anything else. He probably thinks Harold Shipman was a credit to the health service!

LibDem wrote:
Although it will never get reported in The Press, the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition have made representations to Pickles asking for the local decision to be endorsed. It should all be on the Communities and Local Government web site shortly. Expect an early decision on the call in. Following review of procedures last year, the Department is targeted to respond more promptly to call in requests.

The Lib-Dems only voted for it so they can claim the bragging rights for doing all the leg work in initiating the negotiations etc. It's a cheap political move to stop Labour claiming all the glory, and the Lib-Dems didn't have to get their hands dirty in the cut and shut planning report that 'A&E' were responsible for seriously tampering with. It smacks of desperation and is a sad indictment against the Lib-Dems that they support a decision which breaks so many rules. Only the Conservatives have the honesty and integrity to stand up against this wrongful and irresponsible act of negligence.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

LibDem wrote:
Although it will never get reported in The Press, the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition have made representations to Pickles asking for the local decision to be endorsed. It should all be on the Communities and Local Government web site shortly. Expect an early decision on the call in. Following review of procedures last year, the Department is targeted to respond more promptly to call in requests.

The Lib-Dems only voted for it so they can claim the bragging rights for doing all the leg work in initiating the negotiations etc. It's a cheap political move to stop Labour claiming all the glory, and the Lib-Dems didn't have to get their hands dirty in the cut and shut planning report that 'A&E' were responsible for seriously tampering with. It smacks of desperation and is a sad indictment against the Lib-Dems that they support a decision which breaks so many rules. Only the Conservatives have the honesty and integrity to stand up against this wrongful and irresponsible act of negligence.

You talk about politicians and honesty and integrity in the same sentence.

That's funny :o)

The same should be said to the anti-brigade, that if Pickles doesn't call it in then they should just except it but i'm sure they wont.

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

You do realise that "support" letters are irrelevant in the decision making process. The simple trip is that someone asks for a call in and the the SecState makes a decision based on the fact.

but if you want to waste your time jog on.

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

LibDem wrote: Although it will never get reported in The Press, the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition have made representations to Pickles asking for the local decision to be endorsed. It should all be on the Communities and Local Government web site shortly. Expect an early decision on the call in. Following review of procedures last year, the Department is targeted to respond more promptly to call in requests.

The Lib-Dems only voted for it so they can claim the bragging rights for doing all the leg work in initiating the negotiations etc. It's a cheap political move to stop Labour claiming all the glory, and the Lib-Dems didn't have to get their hands dirty in the cut and shut planning report that 'A&E' were responsible for seriously tampering with. It smacks of desperation and is a sad indictment against the Lib-Dems that they support a decision which breaks so many rules. Only the Conservatives have the honesty and integrity to stand up against this wrongful and irresponsible act of negligence.

You talk about politicians and honesty and integrity in the same sentence. That's funny :o)

I know it's funny, as they are all capable of lying and bending the rules when it suits them. It's just that on this matter they are clearly raising valid concerns about the rules this decision has broken. The message that the 11 councillors who voted for it is, it's okay to break the rules, it's okay to tamper with planning reports, it's okay to screw-up and delay the LDF process...... Well actually, there are many of us who think, IT IS NOT OKAY....... OKAY ?

jimmy120883 wrote:
The same should be said to the anti-brigade, that if Pickles doesn't call it in then they should just except it but i'm sure they wont.

They will accept that, there will be many that will exploit the loopholes created by the decision, and the consequences of the can of worms that the Council have opened. The blame for all the havoc that this will create, will have to be accepted by those who brought it about.

BioLogic wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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







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




ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

You do realise that "support" letters are irrelevant in the decision making process. The simple trip is that someone asks for a call in and the the SecState makes a decision based on the fact.

but if you want to waste your time jog on.

Glad you think so. By the same token then objection letters are also pointless.

But dont let that spoil your day!

At the very least it is a tangible reminder to those making the decision that for every objection letter (of which i am sure there are a few) the is at least one additional person in support of the project. Whether you believe that matters to popularity hungry politicians or not I don't really care.

Of course, I have also received a response from the office of Erik Pickles which states my opinion DOES matter and will be taken into consideration. If, like you say, writing in support has no effect then why say this, and not a standard letter which states that they will not take support letters into consideration - they are just inviting more letters of support with the reply I received.

Could it actually be that as a long term opposer of this development YOU want supporters to believe that there is nothing they can do to help push the development through?

Hmm I wonder...

Mr Crabtree wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

Mr Crabtree wrote:

LibDem wrote: Although it will never get reported in The Press, the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition have made representations to Pickles asking for the local decision to be endorsed. It should all be on the Communities and Local Government web site shortly. Expect an early decision on the call in. Following review of procedures last year, the Department is targeted to respond more promptly to call in requests.

The Lib-Dems only voted for it so they can claim the bragging rights for doing all the leg work in initiating the negotiations etc. It's a cheap political move to stop Labour claiming all the glory, and the Lib-Dems didn't have to get their hands dirty in the cut and shut planning report that 'A&E' were responsible for seriously tampering with. It smacks of desperation and is a sad indictment against the Lib-Dems that they support a decision which breaks so many rules. Only the Conservatives have the honesty and integrity to stand up against this wrongful and irresponsible act of negligence.

You talk about politicians and honesty and integrity in the same sentence. That's funny :o)

I know it's funny, as they are all capable of lying and bending the rules when it suits them. It's just that on this matter they are clearly raising valid concerns about the rules this decision has broken. The message that the 11 councillors who voted for it is, it's okay to break the rules, it's okay to tamper with planning reports, it's okay to screw-up and delay the LDF process...... Well actually, there are many of us who think, IT IS NOT OKAY....... OKAY ?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe that were the conservatives in power in York that we wouldn't be in exactly the same situation, but with labour politicians taking the stance against the development.

It has nothing to do with honesty and integrity and everything to do with tribalistic voting against the other side.

Who in York votes Tory any more, that leader Gillies I think he is called, seems to wait until something is happening and then goes against it to get his rather un attractive moon shaped face in the Press. Torys in York just doesn't work, actually being fair none of them do, but Tories uuggghhh.

If i were M&S or JL I would have diggers on site today digging the foundations and starting the building work. they have full planning permission so have no reason not to do.

This is the first big planning application to be dealt with the way all applications should be, with common sense. something lacking in the planning dept at the council (or at least in policy)

I didn't see this much hypocracy with the applications for the keepmoat in doncaster (built next to a shopping centre and industrial estate)

Every party has been guilty of bending the planning rules (even the greens, who come up with some endangered weed species to stop developments) York St Johns extension, the council offices, hungate, Nestle (allowing them to knock most of it down), the hospital car park (goes against the road traffic policy).. but most of them were made with either common sense in mind or big brown envelopes, i would suggest both.

like i said at the start, get started building then they can't or won't stop you.by the time they have stopped arguing and realised whats going on it will be too late, the shops will be built.

ycfc wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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







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




ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Giving people examples of what to write in there objection, sounding slightly desperate to me also if people want to genuinley object im sure they can come up with there own reasons get with the times and give up your ridiculous campaign!!

ycfc.

Read it again! It is a letter of support remodelled on the perpetual pastings of a main pain in the neck protectionist C4Y campaigner.

I cannot believe the abuse that some of you throw at people who do not agree with your argument.....the fact that you do resort to abuse dilutes any salient points you may enter into this complicated debate. It is clearly extremely blinkered to consider only one side of the story. It does appear to any fair minded impartial observer that this so called stadium reeks of a huge bribe to bypass planning considerations. Could someone tell me why Bootham Crescent is not fit for purpose other than the want of a few million quid spending on repair and upgrade?Monks cross looks very nice stadium, but traffic on match days would be dire, at least at present it is possible to walk to the stadium. The developer should pay for the roads upgrade as well....then it really would be good.

nearlyman wrote:
I cannot believe the abuse that some of you throw at people who do not agree with your argument.....the fact that you do resort to abuse dilutes any salient points you may enter into this complicated debate. It is clearly extremely blinkered to consider only one side of the story. It does appear to any fair minded impartial observer that this so called stadium reeks of a huge bribe to bypass planning considerations. Could someone tell me why Bootham Crescent is not fit for purpose other than the want of a few million quid spending on repair and upgrade?Monks cross looks very nice stadium, but traffic on match days would be dire, at least at present it is possible to walk to the stadium. The developer should pay for the roads upgrade as well....then it really would be good.

Please do a search for peterstreet and Septimius and see what abuse can really be like. I did not call him a buffoon, idiot having a mental illness or I did not acuse him of bribery and corruption.

Sorry but I can not and will not come close to the language and terminology used by some of the C4Y brigade.

nearlyman wrote:
I cannot believe the abuse that some of you throw at people who do not agree with your argument.....the fact that you do resort to abuse dilutes any salient points you may enter into this complicated debate. It is clearly extremely blinkered to consider only one side of the story. It does appear to any fair minded impartial observer that this so called stadium reeks of a huge bribe to bypass planning considerations. Could someone tell me why Bootham Crescent is not fit for purpose other than the want of a few million quid spending on repair and upgrade?Monks cross looks very nice stadium, but traffic on match days would be dire, at least at present it is possible to walk to the stadium. The developer should pay for the roads upgrade as well....then it really would be good.

Road upgrade???

the chances are that the stadium will not have a car park big enough for all of the cars so the P&R will be used.

if they are sensible about it, they should have shuttle busses from the other P&R to the MX p&R on matchdays therefore spreading the car parking and keeping people out of the pubs.

one other HUGE benefit over BC is that there is currently no pub at MX do the skinfull of beer on route to the match (home and away fans) will hopefully stop

nearlyman wrote:
I cannot believe the abuse that some of you throw at people who do not agree with your argument.....the fact that you do resort to abuse dilutes any salient points you may enter into this complicated debate. It is clearly extremely blinkered to consider only one side of the story. It does appear to any fair minded impartial observer that this so called stadium reeks of a huge bribe to bypass planning considerations. Could someone tell me why Bootham Crescent is not fit for purpose other than the want of a few million quid spending on repair and upgrade?Monks cross looks very nice stadium, but traffic on match days would be dire, at least at present it is possible to walk to the stadium. The developer should pay for the roads upgrade as well....then it really would be good.

Its an enabling development and happens up and down the country.

It gives the council an asset worth millions of pounds and the council in return will allow a consideration to the developers - in this case to allow them to build two big shops. The project still has to go through a planning process, as has this one and the above arrangement shouldn't have any consideration on the planning process - ie it must pass in its own right.

Essentially it is the many millions it costs to redevelop Bootham Crescent which prohibits it. There are a whole heap of other considerations though, including planning permission acceptance in a built up residential area, and Bootham crescent not really big enough to provide addition streams of income - thus making it more difficult for the occupants to break even.

In a nutshell :o)

Yes, it would "only" cost a "few million quid" to redevelop Bootham Crescent, but the Tory-Green Anti-Sport Alliance have yet to explain where this "few million" would come from.

Mulberry Hall? Barnetts? Browns? Bettys?

Thought not.

Put up or shut up.

If this golden opportunity is rejected, against the will of the democratically elected council, then the biggest losers will be the young people of York. The lack of community facilities for sport for a city of our size is a disgrace. If you wish to express your support for this scheme then please let Mister Pickles know

eric.pickles@communi
ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your support and ask for immediate approval quoting the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

It saddens me when a community facility is used as a political football (no pun intended) by our political parties. Its great to see commentators on here who are willing to put aside allegiances (okay, not the most blinkered but some of you) because they recognise the silly, petty in-fighting for what it is. If the Lib Dems had won the last local elections with Tory support, do we not think that Mr Gilies would be saying the complete opposite of what he is now? In fairness, you may well be hearing a different tune from a JA who was in opposition. The good old party whip works both ways.

This is good for York sport and good for York itself. Don't let the politicians throw it all away.

Will.I.Aint wrote:
If this golden opportunity is rejected, against the will of the democratically elected council, then the biggest losers will be the young people of York. The lack of community facilities for sport for a city of our size is a disgrace. If you wish to express your support for this scheme then please let Mister Pickles know

eric.pickles@communi

ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your support and ask for immediate approval quoting the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier !!

I have sent mine, every one else in favour should do likely.
If this project is turned down now it will take the people of York many years to get over it.

Jackanory2 wrote:
Who in York votes Tory any more, that leader Gillies I think he is called, seems to wait until something is happening and then goes against it to get his rather un attractive moon shaped face in the Press. Torys in York just doesn't work, actually being fair none of them do, but Tories uuggghhh.

How many years has York had a Tory run Council in the last 100 years ?

I bet you will be surprised to learn that there have been more years with Conservatives in charge than Labour !

Never voting Conservative again.

All weak words away. The idiots who are against the pride of York's sporting culture and new jobs were defeated heavily.

All we have now is PeterStreet and his multiple usernames talking nonsense on here.

TerryYork wrote:
Never voting Conservative again.

All weak words away. The idiots who are against the pride of York's sporting culture and new jobs were defeated heavily.

All we have now is PeterStreet and his multiple usernames talking nonsense on here.

So there you have it.(in a nut shell)

Just heard from the Sec of State info service, they hope for a decision within 15 days, also its not too late to ask for an enquiry so anybody who believes in correct and proper standards and would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision thoroughly examined
e mail the Secretary of State direct at;
eric.pickles@communi
ties.gsi.gov.uk

State your objections, 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 committee 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.

It is of course pointless asking for a public enquiry NOT to be held! if you do not believe this ask the Government department responsible and to all these football fan monkeys who make allegations, for the sake of it and without any evidence,you are fools and not worth responding to.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.”

It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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






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



ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Smiler wrote:
If i were M&S or JL I would have diggers on site today digging the foundations and starting the building work. they have full planning permission so have no reason not to do. This is the first big planning application to be dealt with the way all applications should be, with common sense. something lacking in the planning dept at the council (or at least in policy) I didn't see this much hypocracy with the applications for the keepmoat in doncaster (built next to a shopping centre and industrial estate) Every party has been guilty of bending the planning rules (even the greens, who come up with some endangered weed species to stop developments) York St Johns extension, the council offices, hungate, Nestle (allowing them to knock most of it down), the hospital car park (goes against the road traffic policy).. but most of them were made with either common sense in mind or big brown envelopes, i would suggest both. like i said at the start, get started building then they can't or won't stop you.by the time they have stopped arguing and realised whats going on it will be too late, the shops will be built.

I don't want to disappoint you, but full permission has NOT been given and therefore if JL et all were to start digging, they would fall foul of the authorities very quickly!

The planning committee have voted to approve it but it is the planning officers who grant formal permission - they have been directed not to give permission by the Sec of State without his specific authority - see his letter dated 12 June that appears on the CofYC planning portal for this application.

The difficulty with this application is the stench that surrounds it and the spin and counter spin of the politicians and the developers. For example, yes jobs will be created at say M&S when it is built. However, jobs will be lost when they shut the Piccadilly and Monks Cross stores. If you oppose the scheme you are portrayed as a YCFC hater, Adam Sinclair supporter or one of the "Castleford" lot (altho quite what Classy Cass has to do with this is beyond me!).

The fact is, whether or not the supporters of the scheme like to admit it or not, this application flies in the face of most established planning policies in this area, as well as national policies. The approval of this scheme has led to the collapse of the LDF at a cost of many £millions (because lets face it, no one believes the official figure of £1.1million).

I want the application calling in, not because I am anti YCFC, anti progress or anti JL or M&S (altho personally I couldn't give a **** if they opened new stores), but because of the stench and the fact that it should be looked at by someone with absolutely NO vested interest in the scheme who will be objective in his or her appraisal of it.

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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







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




ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Peterstreeet: "It is of course pointless asking for a public enquiry NOT to be held!"

But is unable to answer why I have been actively encouraged to do this by former councillors and through the response I received from the office of Erik Pickles to do so...

Honestly... Lying to people about things - that's the sort of response I would expect from C4Y...

speaks99 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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








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





ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Peterstreeet: "It is of course pointless asking for a public enquiry NOT to be held!"

But is unable to answer why I have been actively encouraged to do this by former councillors and through the response I received from the office of Erik Pickles to do so...

Honestly... Lying to people about things - that's the sort of response I would expect from C4Y...

As I said, Monkeys!

peterstreet wrote:

speaks99 wrote:

speaks99 wrote:
It is not too late to act in York’s best interest; Much damage will be done if this development is prevented from going ahead;

If any reader would like to see the Monks Cross 2 decision which was carried by an overwhelming majority proceed without further costly delaying tactics by those with self-interest 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









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






ties.gsi.gov.uk

State you support the project and enclose the planning application numbers 11/02581/OUTM and 11/02199/OUTM

Nothing could be easier!!

Example support could be e.g. more jobs, greater freedom of shopping choice, improved sporting facilities for our very successful football and rugby clubs, additional community and NHS facilities and access for all to York’s Explore library and information centre. That should be enough, but if more is needed then the fact that three major out of town centres have been developed and have not resulted in the Armageddon type catastrophe as predicted by those who are now objecting about two shops (one of whom is already present at Monks Cross) and a super new sports complex.

Peterstreeet: "It is of course pointless asking for a public enquiry NOT to be held!"

But is unable to answer why I have been actively encouraged to do this by former councillors and through the response I received from the office of Erik Pickles to do so...

Honestly... Lying to people about things - that's the sort of response I would expect from C4Y...

As I said, Monkeys!

Ah. The good old if I cant answer the question I'll resort to insults routine.

Nicely done. Proved yourself every bit as bad as the fans throwing insults.

What an absolute load of rubbish the Tories talk.
The existing ground is in a built up area and there are no traffic problems so building a new stadium next to a large park and ride car park should be nirvana.
Why is it that York cannot move forward. There are too many people living in York and the surrounding villages who want to live in the past.

I have been a quiet observer of The Press site and it's many stories regarding the stadium and shops. I have not felt the need to comment before, however I feel now may be the time to join in.
I have chatted with many people from York about this issue in the last few months, often just in passing but I have found that the overwhelming majority are either in favour or at least not opposed to the scheme. My own wife wasn't one of them and had expressed concerns however after reasoned debate she is now firmly in the 'not opposed' camp. I personally feel this is exactly what the city needs, and also feel that the case against, which has been built on scaremongering and over exaggeration has lost any credibility it may once have had. For peterstreet and the few that continue to campaign against what I would consider to be popular opinion (again, this is based on the conversations I have had and the general feeling that I get from people) is frankly embarrassing now!
I'm sure I will be told I am wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm the first to admit that I don't when it comes to the technical details of planning law etc but I do know when I am sick to death of repetitive rubbish being spouted.

ThePhilth wrote:
I have been a quiet observer of The Press site and it's many stories regarding the stadium and shops. I have not felt the need to comment before, however I feel now may be the time to join in.
I have chatted with many people from York about this issue in the last few months, often just in passing but I have found that the overwhelming majority are either in favour or at least not opposed to the scheme. My own wife wasn't one of them and had expressed concerns however after reasoned debate she is now firmly in the 'not opposed' camp. I personally feel this is exactly what the city needs, and also feel that the case against, which has been built on scaremongering and over exaggeration has lost any credibility it may once have had. For peterstreet and the few that continue to campaign against what I would consider to be popular opinion (again, this is based on the conversations I have had and the general feeling that I get from people) is frankly embarrassing now!
I'm sure I will be told I am wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm the first to admit that I don't when it comes to the technical details of planning law etc but I do know when I am sick to death of repetitive rubbish being spouted.

Im sure many people wonder what all the fuss is about, given the trend to out of town development over the past 15 years. However the contradiction with stated government and local planning policy has been so stark that the draft policy for the city for the next 20 years is now dead in the water. From this single planning decision, York now faces a 30's or 60's style development free for all, with any prospect of getting developers willing to do 'sustainable design' on York Central and Castle Piccadilly out of the window for the forseeable future. You may not have noticed, but oil prices are going up and peoples ability to afford to run a car is being hit by the recession. In 15 years time any car based out of town facility will be a liability, and this stadium is going to be owned and run at the expense of your local taxes. It might be near to the residents of Huntington, but for the majority of residents it will be less accessible than Bootham Crescent or the city centre. There's a saying that theres no such thing as a free lunch. The only reason that developers are prepared to do this is the fact that nowhere else in the country would let them get away with it! Even the Highways dept dont think the deal gives them enough money to put enough measures in place to cope with the extra traffic on a Saturday.Of course they will be putting in an air quality monitoring station so that we know when the air in the area gets as dangerously polluted as it is now on the main roads in York, not that anything is done about that (not even signs telling drivers that switching off will save fuel and pollution when queuing at lights!)

greenmonkey wrote:

ThePhilth wrote:
I have been a quiet observer of The Press site and it's many stories regarding the stadium and shops. I have not felt the need to comment before, however I feel now may be the time to join in.
I have chatted with many people from York about this issue in the last few months, often just in passing but I have found that the overwhelming majority are either in favour or at least not opposed to the scheme. My own wife wasn't one of them and had expressed concerns however after reasoned debate she is now firmly in the 'not opposed' camp. I personally feel this is exactly what the city needs, and also feel that the case against, which has been built on scaremongering and over exaggeration has lost any credibility it may once have had. For peterstreet and the few that continue to campaign against what I would consider to be popular opinion (again, this is based on the conversations I have had and the general feeling that I get from people) is frankly embarrassing now!
I'm sure I will be told I am wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm the first to admit that I don't when it comes to the technical details of planning law etc but I do know when I am sick to death of repetitive rubbish being spouted.

Im sure many people wonder what all the fuss is about, given the trend to out of town development over the past 15 years. However the contradiction with stated government and local planning policy has been so stark that the draft policy for the city for the next 20 years is now dead in the water. From this single planning decision, York now faces a 30's or 60's style development free for all, with any prospect of getting developers willing to do 'sustainable design' on York Central and Castle Piccadilly out of the window for the forseeable future. You may not have noticed, but oil prices are going up and peoples ability to afford to run a car is being hit by the recession. In 15 years time any car based out of town facility will be a liability, and this stadium is going to be owned and run at the expense of your local taxes. It might be near to the residents of Huntington, but for the majority of residents it will be less accessible than Bootham Crescent or the city centre. There's a saying that theres no such thing as a free lunch. The only reason that developers are prepared to do this is the fact that nowhere else in the country would let them get away with it! Even the Highways dept dont think the deal gives them enough money to put enough measures in place to cope with the extra traffic on a Saturday.Of course they will be putting in an air quality monitoring station so that we know when the air in the area gets as dangerously polluted as it is now on the main roads in York, not that anything is done about that (not even signs telling drivers that switching off will save fuel and pollution when queuing at lights!)

Full of inaccuracies and contradiction.

1) On the one hand you tell us that we wont be using cars so it will be a liability. Next paragraph you're telling us the cars we aren't driving are polluting the air dangerously. Make up your mind.

2) York Central (teardrop) is not going to happen anytime soon. Certainly not before a new and improved planning framework is introduced. Castle Picadilly according to the developers isn't going to happen either in the short term.

3) Oil prices are rising but also cars are getting more economical, and alternatives to petrol powered cars are moving forward leaps and bounds in the past 3 years. In the next 15 years petrol demand for vehicles will plummet (IMO).

4) "No where else in the country would let them get away with it" Again factually inaccurate. Look at Rotherham as an example - brand new stadium built with a shopping development. There are many others as well.

greenmonkey wrote:

ThePhilth wrote:
I have been a quiet observer of The Press site and it's many stories regarding the stadium and shops. I have not felt the need to comment before, however I feel now may be the time to join in.
I have chatted with many people from York about this issue in the last few months, often just in passing but I have found that the overwhelming majority are either in favour or at least not opposed to the scheme. My own wife wasn't one of them and had expressed concerns however after reasoned debate she is now firmly in the 'not opposed' camp. I personally feel this is exactly what the city needs, and also feel that the case against, which has been built on scaremongering and over exaggeration has lost any credibility it may once have had. For peterstreet and the few that continue to campaign against what I would consider to be popular opinion (again, this is based on the conversations I have had and the general feeling that I get from people) is frankly embarrassing now!
I'm sure I will be told I am wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm the first to admit that I don't when it comes to the technical details of planning law etc but I do know when I am sick to death of repetitive rubbish being spouted.

Im sure many people wonder what all the fuss is about, given the trend to out of town development over the past 15 years. However the contradiction with stated government and local planning policy has been so stark that the draft policy for the city for the next 20 years is now dead in the water. From this single planning decision, York now faces a 30's or 60's style development free for all, with any prospect of getting developers willing to do 'sustainable design' on York Central and Castle Piccadilly out of the window for the forseeable future. You may not have noticed, but oil prices are going up and peoples ability to afford to run a car is being hit by the recession. In 15 years time any car based out of town facility will be a liability, and this stadium is going to be owned and run at the expense of your local taxes. It might be near to the residents of Huntington, but for the majority of residents it will be less accessible than Bootham Crescent or the city centre. There's a saying that theres no such thing as a free lunch. The only reason that developers are prepared to do this is the fact that nowhere else in the country would let them get away with it! Even the Highways dept dont think the deal gives them enough money to put enough measures in place to cope with the extra traffic on a Saturday.Of course they will be putting in an air quality monitoring station so that we know when the air in the area gets as dangerously polluted as it is now on the main roads in York, not that anything is done about that (not even signs telling drivers that switching off will save fuel and pollution when queuing at lights!)

Don’t want wind farms, landfill, incinerators, mobile phone masts, airports, motorways, new housing developments, out of town shopping centres or out of town sports stadiums unless of course they are somewhere else and then we are happy to use them to the detriment of whichever community has agreed to have them or have had them imposed on them. You so called green environmental activists are unreal.

How did you manage to post this message? Probably from an iphone or wireless internet link, but no it cannot be as wireless and infrared signals kill people.

I have a lot of respect for those who have campaigned for cleaner air and reducing pollution in the past, but the green lobby have joined the politically correct brigade to oppose anything that has added value in relation to our quality of life.

Please give some serious thought and a reality check to all the Armageddon type predictions and give some credit to all those that are working on sustainable solutions that are now becoming reality and have been for some time.

I live in Huntington and heard all the tails of doom and gloom from the objectors about how if the Ryedale Stadium, Monks Cross and Clifton Moor were to be built our roads would be clogged and how we would not be able to park outside our own homes. None of their tales of woe came to pass. In fact I reckon it is quieter now than it was before. Unlike Bootham Crescent there are many points of access to the stadium including a Park and Ride close by.

Terry Smith C/o Classic cutz fourth avenue,heworth york i truely and support my york conservative coleauges that it is right that a public enquiry is needed on the new monks cross & stadium on the grounds that This case really does need to be examined by an independent planning authority, I would suggest for the following reasons:-

1) The City of York Council is too heavily involved in the scheme to be able to make an unbiased decision.
2) There were some irregular occurrences (for York) in the planning process which give concern.
3) The Council's decision to approve goes against all hitherto and developing policy in York.
4) The Council's decision to approve goes against the NPPF guidelines and Ministerial advice on out-of-town shopping.
5) It is likely to cause harm of between £50M and £90M lost to the city centre economy (depending on which consultants report you choose.)
6) Business closures in the city centre could cause material harm to the historic core of the city of York if empty properties are not maintained.
7) Far from creating new jobs, losses in the centre may outnumber jobs created on the outskirts. At best, there would be a displacement of jobs to the out-of-town retail park.
8) Business investment in the city centre will be deterred. York may lose a £200M redevelopment at Piccadilly (city centre) by Centros/LsSalle as a direct result of this decision.
9) Premier employment land has been redesignated for retail and leisure use by this decision and this may impact negatively on the potential for inward investment.
10) It is likely to cause "severe harm" to the highway network (according to the Council's own transport officers (who rarely comment on planning schemes.))
11) Air pollution, traffic congestion, and carbon emissions will increase from the thousands of additional road journeys, including some journeys from the other end of the country as opposing football fans will choose to drive rather than come by rail to York as they may do so presently.
12) The Council's progress towards a Local Development Framework is in tatters as this decision has run a coach and horses through developing policy.

Terry Smith C/o Classic cutz fourth avenue,heworth york i truely beleive and support my york conservative coleauges that it is right that a public enquiry is needed and called for on the new monks cross shopping development & stadium on the grounds that This case really does need to be examined by an independent planning authority, I would suggest for the following reasons:-

1) The City of York Council is too heavily involved in the scheme to be able to make an unbiased decision.
2) There were some irregular occurrences (for York) in the planning process which give concern.
3) The Council's decision to approve goes against all hitherto and developing policy in York.
4) The Council's decision to approve goes against the NPPF guidelines and Ministerial advice on out-of-town shopping.
5) It is likely to cause harm of between £50M and £90M lost to the city centre economy (depending on which consultants report you choose.)
6) Business closures in the city centre could cause material harm to the historic core of the city of York if empty properties are not maintained.
7) Far from creating new jobs, losses in the centre may outnumber jobs created on the outskirts. At best, there would be a displacement of jobs to the out-of-town retail park.
8) Business investment in the city centre will be deterred. York may lose a £200M redevelopment at Piccadilly (city centre) by Centros/LsSalle as a direct result of this decision.
9) Premier employment land has been redesignated for retail and leisure use by this decision and this may impact negatively on the potential for inward investment.
10) It is likely to cause "severe harm" to the highway network (according to the Council's own transport officers (who rarely comment on planning schemes.))
11) Air pollution, traffic congestion, and carbon emissions will increase from the thousands of additional road journeys, including some journeys from the other end of the country as opposing football fans will choose to drive rather than come by rail to York as they may do so presently.
12) The Council's progress towards a Local Development Framework is in tatters as this decision has run a coach and horses through developing policy.

Cannot believe you have put all trhat together yourself Terry. There is a lot of terminology built into that monologue that we have become very familiar with over the past few weeks.

Don't tell me the Fourth Avenue Traders association is to be added to the list of all the conspiritors that are going to have to pay for any waste a our council tax money.

bjb wrote:
Cannot believe you have put all trhat together yourself Terry. There is a lot of terminology built into that monologue that we have become very familiar with over the past few weeks.

Don't tell me the Fourth Avenue Traders association is to be added to the list of all the conspiritors that are going to have to pay for any waste a our council tax money.

It could spring from the Conservative club. HA HA!
It is becoming quite boring now.
I really hope that the Secretary of State is not influenced in anyway because Conservatives in York are against this Development .

Terry smith york conservatives c/o classic cutz fourth avenue, heworth york,along with all my york conservative coleauges i really hope that my conservative party coleauge Eric pickles the Secretary of State is influenced to calling for a public enquiry on the monkscross shops and stadium developement.

the famous one! wrote:
Terry smith york conservatives c/o classic cutz fourth avenue, heworth york,along with all my york conservative coleauges i really hope that my conservative party coleauge Eric pickles the Secretary of State is influenced to calling for a public enquiry on the monkscross shops and stadium developement.

I hope not with brown envelopes.

Yorkie41 wrote:

the famous one! wrote:
Terry smith york conservatives c/o classic cutz fourth avenue, heworth york,along with all my york conservative coleauges i really hope that my conservative party coleauge Eric pickles the Secretary of State is influenced to calling for a public enquiry on the monkscross shops and stadium developement.

I hope not with brown envelopes.

Surely not - this whole scheme is a 'legalised' brown envelope job called 'enabling development'!

PS Nicely placed advert... for John Lewis!!

greenmonkey wrote:

Yorkie41 wrote:

the famous one! wrote:
Terry smith york conservatives c/o classic cutz fourth avenue, heworth york,along with all my york conservative coleauges i really hope that my conservative party coleauge Eric pickles the Secretary of State is influenced to calling for a public enquiry on the monkscross shops and stadium developement.

I hope not with brown envelopes.

Surely not - this whole scheme is a 'legalised' brown envelope job called 'enabling development'!

You speak as if it's a bad thing that York council are going to get an asset worth many millions for a fraction of the cost.

Enabling developments go on up and down the country. It's nothing that's specific to York, nor is it particularly shocking.

Haha....Tory U turn...no inquiry needed.......well thats what will happen next

Everyone i speak to think 2 large stores up at MX will make no difference whats so ever to the economy of the City Centre.
It was the proposed expansion that was refused that people think would do the harm ..
The loan the FA gave Yortk city years ago had a clause regarding a new stadium or the loan would have to be paid back .. am i right ?
Mulberry hall owners cannot moan about out of town shopping as they own china china in the designer outlet which always looks busy and doing nicely..
BC would cost millions to bring back up to a standard for the FA League and upkeap - money that just is not there

I am a Tory voter from a strong and known Tory family in York -
but if they put a stop to the community stadium a Tory voter for CYC I will NO longer be !

speaks99 wrote:

greenmonkey wrote:

Yorkie41 wrote:

the famous one! wrote: Terry smith york conservatives c/o classic cutz fourth avenue, heworth york,along with all my york conservative coleauges i really hope that my conservative party coleauge Eric pickles the Secretary of State is influenced to calling for a public enquiry on the monkscross shops and stadium developement.

I hope not with brown envelopes.

Surely not - this whole scheme is a 'legalised' brown envelope job called 'enabling development'!

You speak as if it's a bad thing that York council are going to get an asset worth many millions for a fraction of the cost. Enabling developments go on up and down the country. It's nothing that's specific to York, nor is it particularly shocking.

What is shocking about York's situation, is that MX2 broke so many of York's planning rules/strategies, and is not in accordance with the NPPF.