Shopkeepers attack out-of-town schemes (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
York shopkeepers attack out-of-town schemes
9:14am Saturday 14th January 2012 in Community stadium news
INDEPENDENT shopkeepers on a popular street in York have joined the attack on plans for more out-of-town stores.
The trustees of Monks Cross Shopping Park want to alter the site’s planning guidelines so they can attract three big stores and install mezzanine floors to existing outlets, creating 339 new jobs, while Oakgate (Monks Cross) Ltd has submitted proposals for new Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stores in a neighbouring scheme also including a community stadium.
Both applications are due to go before City of York Council, but the Bishopthorpe Road Traders Association (BRTA) which represents a number of niche independent shops, has written to the authority saying “tenuous economic claims” have been made about their potential benefits.
The group said the developments “raise the spectre” of businesses relocating from the city centre and local communities, Andy Shrimpton, who runs Bishopthorpe Road’s Cycle Heaven shop, said: “We are very alarmed by these proposals.
“Such developments represent a very large structural change to the physical and economic geography of the city, which cannot fail to have an impact on every shopping street.
“Strong local businesses are not just going to sit back and watch the periphery of York get colonised by their competitors – they are going to relocate.
“This will be very bad for the city centre and neighbourhood shopping areas. What makes York such a great place to live is that it’s a compact city composed of neighbourhoods, with shops and amenities close to where people live. Many local shopping streets, like Bishopthorpe Road, are crucial to neighbourhood vitality.”
The BRTA claimed benefits from the Monks Cross schemes would be outweighed by falling trade elsewhere, and acting chair Johnny Hayes, of Pexton’s Hardware, said: “Now is the time to draw the line, stand up to these large-scale developments and start supporting local businesses, which collectively do more for the local economy and community.”
Oakgate director Richard France said: “The community stadium development will have significant economic benefits for the whole of York.
“Robust retail studies demonstrate there will be an immediate £12 million benefit to the city’s economy each and every year.
“The development will create 1,000 jobs on site primarily for local people, providing salaries which will be spent in local shops.
“The retail impact assessment does not identify any adverse impact on Bishopthorpe Road’s shops, which have traditionally supported the day-to-day needs of the local area and would not typically compete directly with the type of retailer we are seeking to bring to the community stadium development.”
Comments(74)
roskoboskovic
says...
9:43am Sat 14 Jan 12
tommyinyork
says...
10:06am Sat 14 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
10:15am Sat 14 Jan 12
Last para. A lie. His own impact assessment declares that £70 million of revenues attracted to MX2 will come from the 'rest of York'! On top of the £40m from the city centre.
The only place any £12m in benefit to York is in Oakhate (sic) back pockets and anyone else from Directors of YCFC downwards.
The big con is all the undeclared loyal YCFC fans attacking retailers as vested interest when they hide their own. Love for their club means they have to hate any detractors. Pathetic.
DeeJaiEss
says...
10:30am Sat 14 Jan 12
The majority like the status quo - they are quite happy to keep their hands firmly clasped around York's neck, to ensure it doesn't develop into a more prosperous city.
Or would they be more open if such a development was inside the City Walls?
Oh no! They didn't like Coppergate II, which would have brought more footfall into the centre of York.
This asphyxiating attitude will do nothing more but make York a giant museum piece.
As for our band of independent shops in Bishopthorpe Road I say this - get a grip! How many people from anywhere other than the local area make a beeline for Pextons and its fellow independent traders? How many from Haxby? Heworth? They had more to worry about from the likes of Barnitts than something on the opposite side of town but I don't suppose that will get mentioned, seeing that Barnitts are another member of not so merry band of nay-sayers.
Remember - people have to live here!!!
York didn't die when Clifton Moor was built, not did it suffer a cardiac arrest when Monks Cross/McArthur Glen was developed.
Your choice is this - either sales happen in York thus keeping some money in the local economy or money is spent elsewhere.
This attitude will kill York, not any development at Monks Cross.
tommyinyork
says...
11:25am Sat 14 Jan 12
It will fall behind places such as Leeds etc.
Like the planned airport, a few old people cry about a bit of noise but don't realize that incoming flights help the economy and increase visitors.
Sad pathetic city we live in with a set of complete utter goons who always moan.
NoMorePlease
says...
12:48pm Sat 14 Jan 12
tommyinyork wrote:Incorrect use of this word. Out of town is not in your own backyard
nimbies
Even AndyD
says...
12:53pm Sat 14 Jan 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Undeclared? I think most of us are anything but that. And at least we don't hijack institutions like the York Civic Trust to shoe-in our vested interests.
Penultimate para. Misleading. Only actually 230 new jobs.
Last para. A lie. His own impact assessment declares that £70 million of revenues attracted to MX2 will come from the 'rest of York'! On top of the £40m from the city centre.
The only place any £12m in benefit to York is in Oakhate (sic) back pockets and anyone else from Directors of YCFC downwards.
The big con is all the undeclared loyal YCFC fans attacking retailers as vested interest when they hide their own. Love for their club means they have to hate any detractors. Pathetic.
nickeggleton
says...
1:38pm Sat 14 Jan 12
This is not an argument about progress. It's an argument about sustainability.
Existing jobs, the environment, congestion, listed buildings etc.
Yes York needs progress. But thoughtful, strategic, long-term evolution.
A 'community stadium' more an unsustainable business in return for plundering the jobs of people who work in small businesses is capitalism at its worst.
Oakhate (nice one SS), M&S, JohnLewis don't care about York - they only care about shareholder profits. At any cost.
York has been 'behind' Leeds for a long time. And as someone who lived there for a long time (10 years), can I tell you something. It's not paradise.
mummymetal
says...
2:12pm Sat 14 Jan 12
mummymetal
says...
2:13pm Sat 14 Jan 12
bjb
says...
5:25pm Sat 14 Jan 12
I cannot see how Bishopthorpe Road is relevant to what is happening at Monk's Cross or even in the city. Hands up all those that live in Huntington, New Earswick, Haxby or Wiggington that regularly travels to Bishopthorpe Road to shop!
speaks99
says...
8:10pm Sat 14 Jan 12
Even AndyD
says...
8:33pm Sat 14 Jan 12
nickeggleton wrote:Utter rubbish. Still can't explain can you Nick, or any of the vested interest trader brigade, why two more stores will do something that three whole retail parks haven't; make a jot of difference to the city centre.
Lol. Hijack the Civic Trust? Think they and the Conservation Trust (& the rest) are quite capable of knowing their own minds.
This is not an argument about progress. It's an argument about sustainability.
Existing jobs, the environment, congestion, listed buildings etc.
Yes York needs progress. But thoughtful, strategic, long-term evolution.
A 'community stadium' more an unsustainable business in return for plundering the jobs of people who work in small businesses is capitalism at its worst.
Oakhate (nice one SS), M&S, JohnLewis don't care about York - they only care about shareholder profits. At any cost.
York has been 'behind' Leeds for a long time. And as someone who lived there for a long time (10 years), can I tell you something. It's not paradise.
Trying to stamp out competition at a cost of a valuable community asset is so York Chamber of Trade. Vested interest hypocrisy - which is why these people can have an out of town outlet whilst trying to stop others having the same. Its why they can be against Coppergate II one moment and for it the next. Its shoddy and immoral - but they've been found out. Your rantings cannot change that.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:05pm Sat 14 Jan 12
'2 more stores', is spinning the fact that they are 200,000 sq ft in size. Keep repeating it and you might believe it. No-one else will.
The 3 retail parks that already exist did effect the city centre (read the City Retail Survey - produced by GVA in 2009), but it has recovered in spite of these threats. And may I pre-empt your 'there I told you everything will be ok', with 'out of town centres' were before the uptake of the Internet and before the recession. Just 2 small factors that might not be so easy to shrug off or compensate against this time.
'Trying to 'stamp out the competition' at a cost of a 'valuable community asset'? Think it's been said before. It's only competition if it's fair - and copious free parking isn't fair. And 'valuable community asset' to a tiny tiny % of people who will use it (at a cost of £millions) and the bunglers / burlgars who will benefit.
This has nothing to do with CoppergateII. That argument was about archaeology and heritage and an overly complex use of the opportunity. Dragging it into the argument is shoddy and immoral.
You're rantings are the one obfuscating the truth. You are selfserving. Your opinion benefits no-one but yourself. You don't employ people or pay for the upkeep of high maintenance buildings with your hard work or will have to put up with increased congestion and pollution.
You just want to bail out the Mcgills and save your precious but failed football business, sorry 'club'.
bjb:
The overcharging is the fault of City of York Council. Blame them.
As far as Bishopthorpe Road is concerned - the argument isn't difficult to understand. People are attracted to free parking. If they can get everything they want out of town why would they pay extra to park in town, where rent and rates are higher and therefore retailers need to charge more to make the same.
Speaks99: You're a smartarse and no-one likes a smartarse. You're the one that wants to have their cake and eat it. BRTA are standing up for all the neighbourhood shopping districts: Heworth, Huntington, Haxby, New Earswick etc will all be decimated.
Avensis Lady
says...
11:06pm Sat 14 Jan 12
mummymetal wrote:I could not have put it better myself. This would create more jobs as they would need to 'police' parking areas at the out of town shopping complexes
simple answer; charge for car aparking in out of town area at same rate as city centre car parks. This would make people choose the shops they want to go to rather than just going where the parking is free.
Viper_7
says...
11:24pm Sat 14 Jan 12
bjb wrote:Which is why "park and ride" fails as well for most, who wants to park up miles out of town so they can drag all their shopping around with them for hours.
Even if they did charge to park in an out of town centre car park I would still shop there. Why? Because they don't overcharge. There is more choice. It is easier to get a lot of shopping to your car and there are no massive traffic jams when trying to leave.
I cannot see how Bishopthorpe Road is relevant to what is happening at Monk's Cross or even in the city. Hands up all those that live in Huntington, New Earswick, Haxby or Wiggington that regularly travels to Bishopthorpe Road to shop!
You either shop on line, or you go to where you can drop of shopping easily.
As you say even if they charge for parking for out of town areas, it's still more attractive. I'd use the train, if again I didn't have to cart everthing around.
Either provide cost effective parking in proximity to shopping/tourist attractions or give up and just have an on-line presence.
Viper_7
says...
11:27pm Sat 14 Jan 12
Avensis Lady wrote:Why would private companies charge for parking on their private land?
mummymetal wrote:I could not have put it better myself. This would create more jobs as they would need to 'police' parking areas at the out of town shopping complexes
simple answer; charge for car aparking in out of town area at same rate as city centre car parks. This would make people choose the shops they want to go to rather than just going where the parking is free.
Sillybillies
says...
10:28am Sun 15 Jan 12
Why would private companies charge for parking on their private land?
Quite, there are some who live in cloud cuckoo land!
farmerpalmer
says...
11:23am Sun 15 Jan 12
American Mall mentality appears to be taking over the UK but is it for the better? US style out of town shopping centres are great for the large multi's as receiving deliveries is easy, rent is cheap, the buildings are new & cheap to run and parking is simple. They are also simple for the car obsessed british public who are slowly adopting the physique of our colonial cousins too. Must we adopt everything the US does? Next we’ll be invading Libya, oh, hang on..
The crux of Andy’s point is simple, not just in terms of infrastructure changes, but in simple terms. When you want to buy a bag of screws, should you have to jump in your car (spending money on fuel) to go to the out of town orange shop to try to get sense from some geriatric drone and pay more for the privilege , or walk down the street to the local DIY shop, speak to an expert and get the right product?
If we don’t turn this around soon, there won’t be ANY local stores. The UK’s GDP will continue to plummet, the money taken by the multi’s will continue to flow abroad further to the detriment of the UK and our high streets.
Now let’s be clear about where the money you spend in these convenient out of town centres goes, to shareholders and the manufacturers abroad. Because these multi’s are so large they deal directly with the manufacturers, cutting out the UK distributors and thus the outward flow of money. If you spend your money locally the majority of it stays in the UK, which in the current economic climate is nothing but good.
IF we all buy locally and avoid the multi’s, we could sort out this recession very quickly. I’m doing my bit, are you?
Sillybillies
says...
12:47pm Sun 15 Jan 12
or walk down the street to the local DIY shop, speak to an expert and get the right product?
And how many of us have one near enough to do that? Get real for heaven's sake and start inhabiting the real world, not the world of dreams!
Even AndyD
says...
1:14pm Sun 15 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
2:25pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Bishopthorpe Road looks to be a lovely place, however, do they really believe that the Monks X development is going to have a detrimental effect on them? They are more in danger if any of the city centre developments get the go ahead. Does that mean we should halt any progressive development for the sake of some small sole traders?
Septimius Severus
says...
2:28pm Sun 15 Jan 12
See a duck, hear a duck. Call it a duck.
speaks99
says...
3:05pm Sun 15 Jan 12
By the way, when you buy your new television, or replace your favourite shirt, will you be going to Huntington to the... erm... post office? Cake shop? Local hairdresser? No. That's because local shops offer something different to what John lewis and Marks' retail. Yes you might go to B&Q for your hardware instead of Paxtons, but that's a whole different argument and has nothing to do with Monks X really.
We live in a day and age when convenience is everything. Lives are busier than ever before, with more emphasis placed on free time. That's why we shop at Sainsburys instead of the local greengrocer. That's why we buy our CD's and DVD's online and HMV have seen there profits falling year on year. We have to move with the times rather than rally against commercialism. We hear again and again that people are going to out of town shopping centres because they are convenient. If this is what people are wanting then this is what we should be providing. To be successful in retail in our society these days you need to understand what the consumer wants, and be proactive. If/When JL & M&S open then the council need to be proactive with a distinct city centre policy. Be proactive. That is how the city centre will survive/fail.
Even AndyD
says...
3:49pm Sun 15 Jan 12
The city centre will always thrive because the footfall will always be there in somewhere like York. What we *should* be doing is adapting and growing as a city to meet the needs of residents, students and tourists alike. What we should NOT be doing is preserving the centre in aspic for the sole prosperity of certain shop owners. Not that I see any evidence to support their concerns anyway - as a thriving retail centre suggests. At the end of the day though, traders are here to serve the public, not the other way round - that my friends is the nature of business in a free economy.
bjb
says...
3:51pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Please can we have one of the local DIY shops in Huntington like there appears to be around the rest of York.
bjb
says...
3:51pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Please can we have one of the local DIY shops in Huntington like there appears to be around the rest of York.
Buzz Light-year
says...
4:47pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Sillybillies wrote:You used to. Ask yourself why.
or walk down the street to the local DIY shop, speak to an expert and get the right product?And how many of us have one near enough to do that? Get real for heaven's sake and start inhabiting the real world, not the world of dreams!
Sillybillies
says...
4:55pm Sun 15 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
4:59pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Sillybillies wrote:This ^^ People want more choice, more convenience and a better price.
The clock cannot be put back and we have to live with what we have now. Get real!!
arglemcgee
says...
5:44pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Sillybillies wrote:Well I do walk or cycle to Barnitt's in Acomb, and am generally happy with that. I can say their expertise is consistent though. Some of us choose to live in places like Acomb, South Bank or Haxby because they offer a good range of local shops. However, those are the only three areas of York (outside the city centre) that have clusters of 20+ businesses. Being in or near the city centre of course offers even more choice.
or walk down the street to the local DIY shop, speak to an expert and get the right product?
And how many of us have one near enough to do that? Get real for heaven's sake and start inhabiting the real world, not the world of dreams!
Septimius Severus
says...
7:35pm Sun 15 Jan 12
speaks99 wrote:You keep talking, but say nothing.
Septimus. Far from being a smart arse. The market research that you all seem to put so much trust in states that impact on the Bishopthorpe Road is negligible. You're quite happy to quote statistics showing how the city centre will become some post apocalyptic wasteland after John Lewis and M&S open, however, you then go and infer that the same research must be wrong as the local shopping districts will be decimated... You pick and choose points from the report and make yourself look foolish.
By the way, when you buy your new television, or replace your favourite shirt, will you be going to Huntington to the... erm... post office? Cake shop? Local hairdresser? No. That's because local shops offer something different to what John lewis and Marks' retail. Yes you might go to B&Q for your hardware instead of Paxtons, but that's a whole different argument and has nothing to do with Monks X really.
We live in a day and age when convenience is everything. Lives are busier than ever before, with more emphasis placed on free time. That's why we shop at Sainsburys instead of the local greengrocer. That's why we buy our CD's and DVD's online and HMV have seen there profits falling year on year. We have to move with the times rather than rally against commercialism. We hear again and again that people are going to out of town shopping centres because they are convenient. If this is what people are wanting then this is what we should be providing. To be successful in retail in our society these days you need to understand what the consumer wants, and be proactive. If/When JL & M&S open then the council need to be proactive with a distinct city centre policy. Be proactive. That is how the city centre will survive/fail.
There is no 'market research' report.
A market research report would be totally ineffectual in this situation as they measure the past and present.
An economic impact assesment is an expert forecast. A prediction.
You keep drivelling on about it doesn't make it so..
There are 2 economic impact assesments.
1 by the developer Oakhate. 1 by an independent retail expert, GVA. (NB the retail expert CYC usually employ on these matters - but not when it doesn't suit there argument it seems!).
Both are damning. But at different scales.
The report that quotes the figures regarding the £79million coming from the 'rest of York' is the Oakhate report. Their own words.
The GVA report doesn't name Bishopthorpe Road.
Further.
'Out-of-town' shopping is recognised by government and national planning policies as inherently a bad idea for cities - and consequently prohibited. Except in exceptional circumstances - where it overwhelmingly benefits a community.
Stealing trade and jobs from the city centre and neighbourhood shops isn't benefitting anyone except Oakhate, M&S John Lewis and YCFC.
bjb
says...
7:50pm Sun 15 Jan 12
All this anacradrivel means nothing to me. The way I see it is this. Do I drive 5 minutes to Monks Cross to get parked easily, get everything I want and at a cheaper price or take 20 minutes travelling in to York try to get parked and buy sopme of what I want for a higher price. It is a no brainer.
I am getting confused, as some groups say keep traffic out of the city and some are saying the city should be the only place to shop.
Please lets drop all this statistics, future, past lah dee dah and look at all the people who love to shop out of town. If you give the people what they want they will use it.
speaks99
says...
8:21pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Bishopthorpe road will no more be affected than my local shops 30 miles away. The reason? They serve different purposes. Bishopthorpe Road may have reason to get involved were we talking about a new Tesco. Not John Lewis. Not M&S. As such you might as well get Wakefield council to object. Because its about as meaningful.
none more black
says...
9:32pm Sun 15 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:30pm Sun 15 Jan 12
speaks99: What makes you a retail expert? You don't even know the difference between 'market research' and an 'economic impact assesment'. Ask Malton if they're going to be affected. The answer is... yes. They will be.
none more black: people with jobs in small shops care. How do you 'know' that 'no shops will go bust'? You don't! Their is evidence (from research done by York Civic Trust) that this would affect up to 3500 jobs inn the city centre alone. Read the paper.
speaks99
says...
8:07am Mon 16 Jan 12
And yet again you ignore the substance of the post and choose to dwell on a typo. Well done.
So tell me. How will M&S and JL adversely affect this group of shops?They're not exactly in the same sector.
speaks99
says...
8:16am Mon 16 Jan 12
So there will be a net decrease in jobs in York if this gets built? Get real!
By the way. There/Their. Notice how I don't dwell on a typo.
speaks99
says...
8:19am Mon 16 Jan 12
Even AndyD
says...
8:51am Mon 16 Jan 12
speaks99 wrote:You did exactly the same with me. Made umpteen assumptions about what I did, where I worked, whom I might or might not employ. Plus a few choice insults - all without knowing me!! You can hardly complain if people do the same back!
And how do you know I have no experience in retail? What do you know about me? Nothing.
And yet again you ignore the substance of the post and choose to dwell on a typo. Well done.
So tell me. How will M&S and JL adversely affect this group of shops?They're not exactly in the same sector.
The Great Buda
says...
8:52am Mon 16 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
9:16am Mon 16 Jan 12
Septimius Severus wrote:For the sake of repeating myself.
Penultimate para. Misleading. Only actually 230 new jobs.
Last para. A lie. His own impact assessment declares that £70 million of revenues attracted to MX2 will come from the 'rest of York'! On top of the £40m from the city centre.
The only place any £12m in benefit to York is in Oakhate (sic) back pockets and anyone else from Directors of YCFC downwards.
The big con is all the undeclared loyal YCFC fans attacking retailers as vested interest when they hide their own. Love for their club means they have to hate any detractors. Pathetic.
I did comment on the aticle.
Just to clarify speaks99 you did use the term 'market research in your 3.05 post yesterday. And thanks for proffing my comments. I did spell their wrong. But I wasn't being a pedant when I called your 'market research' nonesense.
Even AndyD: If you are running a retail business in the city and employing people I'll eat my toga.
Buda: Welcome to the party. Where's your evidence that this will be good. Where does it actually say it will be of £12million benefit to the city? That £12m is probably the cost of the stadium. That's it.
They (Oakhate, M&S and JLP (maybe even a certain Malton packaging firm) will be raking in 10 times that a year from existing business - (Fo the mathematically challenged that's the £40m + £71m mentioned earlier). Not my words or research or impact assesment - their own.
Keep calling me out on evidence and I will keep repeating it.
Wish you lot would be honest and just say "look we don't care what it costs in jobs, environment and listed building. As long as we can continue to watch 5th class football. That's all that matters!"
Jokers.
lis0r
says...
1:55pm Mon 16 Jan 12
bjb
says...
3:54pm Mon 16 Jan 12
Septimius.
I promoted my point of view without recourse to vieled insults. I commented what I believed.
Only those that are losing in a debate resort to insults. Not very becoming.
Even AndyD
says...
3:59pm Mon 16 Jan 12
What I'm saying Septimus is you can't just use one side of an argument to prove your point and throwing in the odd insult for good measure doesn't nothing to aid your points.
nickeggleton
says...
4:33pm Mon 16 Jan 12
It's not 1000 extra jobs.
It's 230. Read the application.
(lisor - where's your sense of humour?)
Even AndyD
says...
4:45pm Mon 16 Jan 12
nickeggleton
says...
6:10pm Mon 16 Jan 12
Doesn't include any stadium jobs (4 hours once a fortnight?).
The 1000 referred to are the total no. of 'retail' jobs. They include the number of jobs that will be lost by M&S moving people from Piccadilly. Hence only 230 new jobs.
Even AndyD
says...
7:24pm Mon 16 Jan 12
So M&S Piccadilly employ 770 people? And weren't they shutting anyway there as the lease is up?
Even AndyD
says...
7:27pm Mon 16 Jan 12
meme
says...
9:54am Tue 17 Jan 12
seriously
The scheme will go ahead and needs to York needs to keep up with the opposition and we should be please huge retailers want to come here. BUT we have to accept as a city that MX will become a destination retail park in its own right.
CoYC cannot impose car parking charges but they need to ensure the centre is not disadvantaged by say refunding charges if people spend more than a certain amount in the centre
Pay on exit is a farce and will not encourage more people to the centre
However continues promotion of york centre as was announced today is a benefit out of town retailers dont get and that should also be stepped up.
I couldn't care less about the rescue package for York City FC and don't believe this is a community asset anymore than anyone else but think that the retail is a good idea anyway and if the club is rescued then so be it.
However I firmly also believe OAKHATE should pay for everything as I don't see why residents should pay anything towards a private enterprise profit making scheme
The Great Buda
says...
12:08pm Tue 17 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
7:54am Wed 18 Jan 12
Even AndyD
says...
8:49am Wed 18 Jan 12
nickeggleton
says...
9:39am Wed 18 Jan 12
Even AndyD wrote:That's the point. It's not free.
Its only in York where we could turn down a free stadium. Typical of the old-boys' club mentality which has been holding this city back for years. Time some called the York Chamber of Trade's bluff. No meltdown, no Castleford, just more choice for residents and a valuable asset built. Lets just get on with it shall we?
Not only are CYC & YCFC. Putting in loads to build it, around £40million of sales into the '2 shops' will come from from existing businesses in the city centre according to Oakgate.
If you read the GVA report they estimate double that.
That doesn't count the £70m from the 'rest of York'!
Attacking the chamber of trade is fruitless. How can 'you' call their bluff.
My view is to call the Clubs bluff. Have they tried to negotiate an extension to the Football Foundation loan/grant? Would the FF really close down a club. I don't think so.
The only rush is the McGills deadline.
Even AndyD
says...
12:26pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
1:11pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Think Nick was quoting Oakgate's own impact assesment first (£120m) and adding to it with the GVA.
It's not just the Chamber of Trade who are championing the city centre cause.
Think this lot are too:
BishyRoad Traders’ Association
Federation of Small Business
Fossgate Traders' Association
Gillygate Traders' Association
Goodramgate Traders' Association
York Civic Trust
York Conservation Trust
York Georgian Society
York Green Party
York Natural Environment Trust
York Retail Forum
York & Ryedale Friends of the Earth
BC is behind other stadia - don't think anyone would argue it should / could be nicer.
It's not scaremongering or emotional blackmail to point out jobs would be lost.
Isn't the 'only 2 shops' and boohooing about the club going out of business just as bad?
The club are using the £2m (loads!) FF loan, converted to a grant, to aid in the building of the stadium - or is that not true?
Like Nick and others, I'm surprised that the supporters trust (who as 25% shareholders in the club), have not got a business plan to look at, are not even sure whether the McGills are shareholders in Oakgate (Monk's Cross) Ltd or will benefit financially from the deal. They have not categorically denied that direct question after all. There has to be some reason they have offered to waive the £650,000 interest on their loan to get a change to the agreements in place!
Or am I being suspicious.
speaks99
says...
1:51pm Wed 18 Jan 12
I think that the McGills have been put into a position where they needed to forgo any interest on the loans, though idle speculation is all anyone can really do at this stage. There are lots of reasons why they might have done this, one being having a financial interest in any future development. I personally think that they were beginning to lose the goodwill of the supporters, the longer the status Quo regarding the ground continued. Selling the ground had always been their "exit strategy" in my opinion - the way that they would recoup the loans they had put into the club. Maybe they didn't forsee the club still being at BC at this stage and the amount owing was exceeding the amount the club could afford, even after any sale of the ground.
speaks99
says...
1:59pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Even AndyD wrote:According to some GVA were completely wrong about their findings on Union terrace, but on this they are completely right (maybe because it suits their interests for it to be right on this occasion...)
Think we've been here before, Nick and the GVA report isn't the bible of planning correctness. Some would argue its far from it. I'm not 'attacking' the chamber of trade, I'm countering their biased argument and providing balance. They are entitled to their opinion based on their interests, I'm entitled to mine based on my views of what is right for residents and yes, YCFC. But I've also visited many similar stadia throughout the country both as a spectator and competitor and I think York are behind so many other towns and cities. So less of the emotional blackmail - I'm expressing an opinion to which I'm entitled. Yours isn't the only voice and its not even accurate - YCFC are putting 'loads in' - really?
Even AndyD
says...
2:12pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Its like me saying
Harrogate Minstermen
York Minstermen
York City South
Pocklington Minstermen etc etc.
Plus York Athletics, York Chamber of Commerce, York Labour, York Lib Dems, the Football Federation and anyone else who comes into my head. A long list does not a winning case make; what about the residents, seem to recall a recent survey put them in favour.
York Civic Trust meanwhile have Adam Sinclair on their directorship don't they? Hardly impartial.
Yes - the FF loan becomes a grant, but that isn't the club putting money in, its cash they've never actually had.
The two stores thing isn't boohooing, its just fact. We've three retail parks already and the centre is thriving. The only boohooing I can see are those demanding free parking in the centre and failing to acknowledge the advantages of York's history, tourist attractions, council funded festivals, etc that MX doesn't have. At the end of the day, the traders are entitled to argue and do what is best for their businesses, I've no problem with that. But I've also a right to argue the case for a stadium and I think its a strong case with few drawbacks. Its why nearly every other city our size has such a facility!
nickeggleton
says...
2:13pm Wed 18 Jan 12
There were people in the UTCP campaign who highlighted discrepancies / ommissions from the City of York Council funded report produced by GVA, but at the end of the day the University of York St John called off the deal. Not because of the CYC / GVA report or anyone who said otherwise.
GVA are CYC 'go to guys' on retail economic impact assesments. CYC are ignoring this. But JA maligning them to suit his own opinion / party pledge is a neat political trick. but still a slight of hand manoevre.
And anyway. You can ignore GVA if you want - but the Oakgate / Regeneris report spells out their best case scenario as a £120m loss of revenues from existing businesses in York.
If you don't believe the 'horses mouth' who do you believe. Your own retail expertise?
speaks99
says...
2:35pm Wed 18 Jan 12
nickeggleton wrote:To be honest Nick, I only made that comment to get a rise. Sorry.
And maybe that's just spinning from James Alexander. He was the one who mentioned it first.
There were people in the UTCP campaign who highlighted discrepancies / ommissions from the City of York Council funded report produced by GVA, but at the end of the day the University of York St John called off the deal. Not because of the CYC / GVA report or anyone who said otherwise.
GVA are CYC 'go to guys' on retail economic impact assesments. CYC are ignoring this. But JA maligning them to suit his own opinion / party pledge is a neat political trick. but still a slight of hand manoevre.
And anyway. You can ignore GVA if you want - but the Oakgate / Regeneris report spells out their best case scenario as a £120m loss of revenues from existing businesses in York.
If you don't believe the 'horses mouth' who do you believe. Your own retail expertise?
I don't see this as whether you can trust the report or not. More whether the city can sustain a 10% (?!) loss of revenue. In my opinion there is a lot of evidence which suggests it could. And the upside is that York shows that it is a progressive city capable of attracting big name companies into its fold, and gaining a fairly substantial asset for the city in the process.
I'm not niaive to think that there won't be closures in the city centre, but by the same token I don't buy the ghost town analogy being bandied around all too easily. York has a thriving tourist base and always will have. As such there will always be a highstreet presence. MAny of the shops which end up closing will be reopened in different guises, the demand in York is so high, and will continue to be if/after this expansion happens
Even AndyD
says...
2:47pm Wed 18 Jan 12
In addition we gain a valuable city facility. At the end of the day, traders serve residents, not the other way round. As a resident I do care about jobs, but I'm not here to protect the needs of those who own Betty's & Mulberry Hall; you seem to be suggesting I owe them a living. Why are their jobs, even IF they are at risk more valuable than those created at a new facility?
Meanwhile the protection of the centre doesn't add up in the case of York. There will always be huge footfall because we live in one of the key tourist destinations in northern Europe!
So we are back to profit line and not having stores residents want and a community facility that would benefit residents because traders want to keep their profits up. Thats if it perhaps, maybe, could be, might do, if there is a Z in the month etc etc an MS and JL will have a significantly malevolent influence on their trade. I also note all these stores trade on-line, surely this is damaging the city centre according to your arguments? Nonsense of course - they stores are free to trade how and as they wish and so I say the argument can't be cut both ways.
If the Chamber of Trade were honest and said look, we are going to campaign against this because it MIGHT have a negative impact on OUR trade, I would have some respect. Its trying to claim York will turn into Castleford because of two more stores that really gets my goat!
The Great Buda
says...
2:58pm Wed 18 Jan 12
nickeggleton
says...
3:54pm Wed 18 Jan 12
“Speaks99:
To be honest Nick, I only made that comment to get a rise. Sorry.
I don't see this as whether you can trust the report or not. More whether the city can sustain a 10% (?!) loss of revenue. In my opinion there is a lot of evidence which suggests it could.”
There is no evidence. Only guesses. Some by experts with no vested interest - GVA. Some by experts with a massive vested interest - Regeneris.
“I'm not niaive to think that there won't be closures in the city centre, but by the same token I don't buy the ghost town analogy being bandied around all too easily."
No-one has alluded to a ‘ghost-town’. The argument goes – if a business loses 15% of revenue would it have to lay people off or close? Evidence in the research done by the Conservation Trust says yes.
“Nick - you are using one sided argument again. “
Not true. I’ve presented the actual figures quoted by Oakgate.
“What about the extra trade the new stores will generate - doesn't this more than cancel out the loss as per Oakgate and thus the city has a net economic advantage?”
What ‘extra trade’? Do you mean the £170m in trade M&S and JL will do? That goes to their shareholders and not the local supply chain. Not a net benefit.
“In addition we gain a valuable city facility.”
That’s like what the government said about the Millennium Dome! lmao
Valuable to whom? A few football and rugby fans? A white elephant is more likely.
“At the end of the day, traders serve residents, not the other way round. As a resident I do care about jobs, but I'm not here to protect the needs of those who own Betty's & Mulberry Hall; you seem to be suggesting I owe them a living. Why are their jobs, even IF they are at risk more valuable than those created at a new facility?”
Traders don’t serve residents, they serve customers. They do so to create wealth – for themselves, their stakeholders and their employees. Just because the owners of Betty’s and MulberryHall were the first people to object doesn’t mean they are the only ones. Every business you can see a poster supporting the ‘Campaign4York’ in agrees with them. For the sake of the people they serve and create jobs for. You do not owe anyone a living. But ‘if’ the employees of those businesses whose jobs are at risk are less important than millions of £ going to companies and shareholders in the south or the benefit of YCFC then you owe them an explanation as to why. The people who own the big tourism shops will if this application goes ahead have to reflect on whether they want to do business in a city that rejects them and go where they are wanted. Unfortunately the facts are small businesses dependent on local visitors in the none tourism months cannot just up sticks. This new facility will only create 230 new jobs. That’s what Oakgate say. But if the reason why out of town development is popular is because they need less jobs than in town businesses then the net effect in pure maths is negative.
“Meanwhile the protection of the centre doesn't add up in the case of York. There will always be huge footfall because we live in one of the key tourist destinations in northern Europe!”
There will only be ‘huge footfall’ if the city continues to develop. Closing shops is not progress.
“ So we are back to profit line and not having stores residents want and a community facility that would benefit residents because traders want to keep their profits up. “
There was no public out cry for a JL or a new M&S out of town. So how do you make the assumption ‘residents want’? Residents want free public transport! Residents want lower council tax. There was no petition for a new John Lewis in or out of town. The community stadium benefits less than 3% of the residents. 10% of residents are left handed. You don’t hear them complaining for recognition and facilities that would make their lives better.
“Thats if it perhaps, maybe, could be, might do, if there is a Z in the month etc etc an MS and JL will have a significantly malevolent influence on their trade. I also note all these stores trade on-line, surely this is damaging the city centre according to your arguments? Nonsense of course - they stores are free to trade how and as they wish and so I say the argument can't be cut both ways.”
Of course stores trade online – how else do they compete fairly with the rest of the retail world. But out of town shopping isn’t fair competition is it. There are not 1000s of free car parking places in the city centre are there?
“If the Chamber of Trade were honest and said look, we are going to campaign against this because it MIGHT have a negative impact on OUR trade, I would have some respect. Its trying to claim York will turn into Castleford because of two more stores that really gets my goat!”
The Campaign for York asserts that if planning permission is granted to 240,000 sq ft of retailing (not 2 shops!) then there ‘would’ be a negative effect. That’s not a ‘might be’. It’s an admission by Oakgate. But it’s not just on ‘trade’, but on the environment, jobs and the upkeep of listed buildings. York won’t turn into Castleford. We don’t see how that’s possible. Castleford doesn’t have 1000 of listed or ancient buildings to upkeep.
nickeggleton
says...
3:58pm Wed 18 Jan 12
“Speaks99:
To be honest Nick, I only made that comment to get a rise. Sorry.
I don't see this as whether you can trust the report or not. More whether the city can sustain a 10% (?!) loss of revenue. In my opinion there is a lot of evidence which suggests it could.”
There is no evidence. Only guesses. Some by experts with no vested interest - GVA. Some by experts with a massive vested interest - Regeneris.
“I'm not niaive to think that there won't be closures in the city centre, but by the same token I don't buy the ghost town analogy being bandied around all too easily."
No-one has alluded to a ‘ghost-town’. The argument goes – if a business loses 15% of revenue would it have to lay people off or close? Evidence in the research done by the Conservation Trust says yes.
“Nick - you are using one sided argument again. “
Not true. I’ve presented the actual figures quoted by Oakgate.
“What about the extra trade the new stores will generate - doesn't this more than cancel out the loss as per Oakgate and thus the city has a net economic advantage?”
What ‘extra trade’? Do you mean the £170m in trade M&S and JL will do? That goes to their shareholders and not the local supply chain. Not a net benefit.
“In addition we gain a valuable city facility.”
That’s like what the government said about the Millennium Dome! lmao
Valuable to whom? A few football and rugby fans? A white elephant is more likely.
“At the end of the day, traders serve residents, not the other way round. As a resident I do care about jobs, but I'm not here to protect the needs of those who own Betty's & Mulberry Hall; you seem to be suggesting I owe them a living. Why are their jobs, even IF they are at risk more valuable than those created at a new facility?”
Traders don’t serve residents, they serve customers. They do so to create wealth – for themselves, their stakeholders and their employees. Just because the owners of Betty’s and MulberryHall were the first people to object doesn’t mean they are the only ones. Every business you can see a poster supporting the ‘Campaign4York’ in agrees with them. For the sake of the people they serve and create jobs for. You do not owe anyone a living. But ‘if’ the employees of those businesses whose jobs are at risk are less important than millions of £ going to companies and shareholders in the south or the benefit of YCFC then you owe them an explanation as to why. The people who own the big tourism shops will if this application goes ahead have to reflect on whether they want to do business in a city that rejects them and go where they are wanted. Unfortunately the facts are small businesses dependent on local visitors in the none tourism months cannot just up sticks. This new facility will only create 230 new jobs. That’s what Oakgate say. But if the reason why out of town development is popular is because they need less jobs than in town businesses then the net effect in pure maths is negative.
“Meanwhile the protection of the centre doesn't add up in the case of York. There will always be huge footfall because we live in one of the key tourist destinations in northern Europe!”
There will only be ‘huge footfall’ if the city continues to develop. Closing shops is not progress.
“ So we are back to profit line and not having stores residents want and a community facility that would benefit residents because traders want to keep their profits up. “
There was no public out cry for a JL or a new M&S out of town. So how do you make the assumption ‘residents want’? Residents want free public transport! Residents want lower council tax. There was no petition for a new John Lewis in or out of town. The community stadium benefits less than 3% of the residents. 10% of residents are left handed. You don’t hear them complaining for recognition and facilities that would make their lives better.
“Thats if it perhaps, maybe, could be, might do, if there is a Z in the month etc etc an MS and JL will have a significantly malevolent influence on their trade. I also note all these stores trade on-line, surely this is damaging the city centre according to your arguments? Nonsense of course - they stores are free to trade how and as they wish and so I say the argument can't be cut both ways.”
Of course stores trade online – how else do they compete fairly with the rest of the retail world. But out of town shopping isn’t fair competition is it. There are not 1000s of free car parking places in the city centre are there?
“If the Chamber of Trade were honest and said look, we are going to campaign against this because it MIGHT have a negative impact on OUR trade, I would have some respect. Its trying to claim York will turn into Castleford because of two more stores that really gets my goat!”
The Campaign for York asserts that if planning permission is granted to 240,000 sq ft of retailing (not 2 shops!) then there ‘would’ be a negative effect. That’s not a ‘might be’. It’s an admission by Oakgate. But it’s not just on ‘trade’, but on the environment, jobs and the upkeep of listed buildings. York won’t turn into Castleford. We don’t see how that’s possible. Castleford doesn’t have 1000 of listed or ancient buildings to upkeep.
Even AndyD
says...
5:11pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Lets see what happens and do the debate again!
Even AndyD
says...
5:25pm Wed 18 Jan 12
So no, its not JUST about our professional clubs, but even if it were, its not something to be ashamed of when as far as I can see there will be no net job losses, more retail choice, more chance of competing with the likes of Leeds (whose football team I understand you follow) and Meadowhall and a community facility to boot. Against that you are arguing what - that a few traders profit lines might be hit? Might. Like I said - talking in circles, lets wait and see what happens and then do it again!
speaks99
says...
5:39pm Wed 18 Jan 12
You also suggest Regeneris (??) prepared a research document which is not accurate. Practically slanderous. Regeneris didn't have a vested interest, the people who employed them did. But that doesn't mean the document is in any way unreliable, similar to the GVA being commissioned by people who had a vested interest in the development not happening.
What these companies DO have a vested interest in is getting the research as accurate as possible, but as we know its not an exact science, hence the discrepencies between reports.
I understand some Market research was carried out as part of the retail assessment? 1750 telephone surveys I seem to remember from all around York.
Even AndyD
says...
6:18pm Wed 18 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
9:05pm Wed 18 Jan 12
Why would out of town development need less staff? Don't understand that comment.
"There will only be ‘huge footfall’ if the city continues to develop. Closing shops is not progress."
We've not heard a lot about progress from the anti brigade. Probably because you are intent on standing in the way of progress, as highlighted in the Picadilly development several years ago and this one. What Adam Sinclair and cronies want is to stand in the way of anything which encourages competition to their businesses...
And I don't honestly believe that anyone thinks tourists will suddenly stop coming to York because we build a John Lewis. Tourist will continue to come to York because of the attractions we offer which are pretty much unique to York.
Closing shops might not be progress, but neither is apposing any development which offers competition.
"There was no public out cry for a JL or a new M&S out of town. So how do you make the assumption ‘residents want’?"
read the message boards on here and just see the numbers of people backing the scheme compared to those against. Go and talk to people down the local pubs, go and ask shoppers around and about. The amount of support i've heard is so much stronger than that of the naysayers...
Also the research which underpins the retail assessment supports the application...
"There are not 1000s of free car parking places in the city centre are there?"
By the same token there are not 100's of historic monuments art Monks X.
"240,000 sq ft of retailing (not 2 shops!)"
that pretty much spins both ways. I think officially it is 3 shops... both statements are correct.
"then there ‘would’ be a negative effect."
But a net positive effect on the economy of York - £12m??
"But it’s not just on ‘trade’, but on the environment, jobs and the upkeep of listed buildings."
There is a demand NOW for these buildings - there will be a demand after the development is built.
bjb
says...
9:24pm Wed 18 Jan 12
As long as the lengthy list mentioned in a previous post maintains a strangle hold on the city centre, then it is only worth visiting as a tourist for it's attractions and not shopping.
At MX we need many more of the businesses that suits York's residents needs and will never be provided by the city centre, so let them come. I am long past ever needing to go into the city for our family needs. All we need now is a KFC and a Bonmarche, then job done.
I am waiting for those complaining about MX to blame the demise of Woolworths, Barratts and laterly Peacocks on Monks Cross or Clifton Moor and not the banking crisis.
The Great Buda
says...
7:58am Thu 19 Jan 12
Good to see your still reading things the way you want to see them.
Do keep it up.
The Great Buda says...
9:38am Sat 14 Jan 12