Partnership backs Monks Cross shopping scheme (From York Press)

Community stadium news RSS Feed

York Economic Partnership backs Monks Cross shopping scheme

8:20am Thursday 22nd December 2011 in Community stadium news Photograph of the Author By Julie Hayes, Business editor

Peter Kay: City centre resilient

YORK Economic Partnership has given its backing to plans to expand Monks Cross shopping centre as part of an application to build a Community Stadium in York.

Its chairman, Peter Kay, said the York Economic Partnership agreed that if York’s overall gross value added (GVA) were increased by the development, then it would be in favour of it.

He said expert opinion supports the view that York’s overall GVA will increase significantly as a result of the substantial investment.

He said: “We should also think about the future employment of our young people by two of the best employers in the UK. Would York really turn its back on such an opportunity and refuse to help the employment prospects of its citizens?”

Mr Kay said there had been many arguments against the development based on opinion rather than expert knowledge, and that York’s city centre was resilient as shown by its status as one of the best performing cities for occupancy, with fewer than 10 per cent of shops left empty.

He said the recent view of Britain’s High Streets by retail expert Mary Portas reiterated general planning policy guidance and was not specific to York.

He said: “This is not a choice between two locations. It is a choice between the Vangarde site at Monks Cross or not at all. It is a choice whether to welcome a large investment in York by Marks & Spencer and John Lewis or to tell them that their investment is not welcome in York. ‘You are welcome in York but only in the city centre’ is not an option. It is at Monks Cross or not at all.”

‘It would add a spark’

WITH the plans for the expansion of Monks Cross revealed, Faye Dobson asked shoppers in York what they thought.

Peter Berry, of Ripon, never visits the out-of-town shopping centre. However, he said: “A John Lewis would make the trip out there worth it for me as it’s something the city doesn’t have. York makes a healthy living out of the tourists so I don’t think it’ll affect the city centre too much.”

Josh Hudson, 20, also expects the expansion to attract more visitors. He said: “I’ll go more. It’s something extra and adds a spark. I don’t want it to draw people away from the city, so maybe small tweaks would be better than a large expansion but it’s good to see them making the most of the land up there.”

Deborah Bates from Overton said: “It won’t stop everyone from coming into town because some people don’t have transport. In some ways it’s a good thing but it’s definitely a bad thing for the city centre.”

Paul Austin from Dunnington said: “The new development will make everything too easy. The buses into the city are too expensive so people will be more inclined to use the park and ride. I think the city will turn into a theme park for tourists.”

Aura Jones, who lives in York city centre, said: “I don’t drive and I’m against the increased use of cars to get to Monks Cross. I like that a lot of people walk and cycle to get into York.”

Freya Lovett, a student from Huntington, said: “I think different shops would have more impact – especially for young people. Generally though, the city is nicer. It’s more interesting and has a better atmosphere so I don’t think people will stop coming.”

Comments(20)

nickeggleton says...
9:09am Thu 22 Dec 11

There can be no 'evidence' when forecasting. It's all opinion.

I can't argue with a desire for increased GVA long-term, but 'expert' opinion is divided.

MX2 will create some jobs and profits for mega businesses, but will that outweigh the jobs lost and the local supply chain for small businesses?

Not in my opinion.

I choose to take heed of CYC former retail advisors who warn that far from growing GVA, the cost could be up to £89m p.a to the city centre.

I choose to take heed of York Conservation Trust research that shows that would cost 3500 jobs.

I choose Centros statement that Picadilly would be unlikely to be developed.

I choose common-sense.