Formal objection lodged against Monks Cross development plans (From York Press)

Here we go again. It`s like a rollercoaster. For goodness sake, get a grip and let`s have some actual facts and figures from ALL sides, and stop the `gloom and doom` scenario. Even without the Community Stadium at MX, York WILL NOT suffer, as can be seen from the out of town shopping areas - it`s the INTERNET SHOPPING that city traders should be worried about.

Totally agree johna....I just cannot believe the sheer greed and selfishness of these objectors. the chance of a John Lewis store coming to York is a golden opportunity for the whole area and should be welcomed with open arms

Also, for a change: let`s have something done for York RESIDENTS and not tourists, since we put a lot of our money into the City of York through Council Tax.

Seriously, "disaster", that's the word we're going with here? All because a John Lewis wants to come to York.
Utterly pathetic, selfish and frankly out of order now. There's nothing to back up there claims, heck, even GVA themselves recommended out of town development a few years back. They themselves appear to be lost in their own series of lies and contradictions.

Funny how two well known brands/people had an article in the Press in the last few days regarding new things in the centre. No one appears to be losing jobs here or shutting down because of it, we even had a direct quote welcoming competition.

you re not going to pay a planning expert to disagree with you are you so this objection is a farce.i notice that ycc are asking for residents opinion on the pointless park anf ride so why not ask us our opinion on this one.i suspect that at least 80% of us would be in favour.

Serious questions must be asked about who is paying GVA to raise this objection. It flies in the face of their own report for goodness sake!

One things for sure; GVA can no longer be seen as indpendent and impartial. Their clearly just protecting those with a vested intrest.

So nothing new to report here again then Mark Stead? Adam Sinclair, Chair of the YCofT has an article a couple of days ago objecting (hypocrite!), then today, GVA - the consultants paid for by the same YCofT - come out with an objection.

Same story, different day, nothing new...

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9529508.
Harry_Redknapp____ow
es_life____to_ex_Cit
y_chairman/

Now there`s a story that shows Adam Sinclair up when comparing father and son!

It's a shame Mr France hasn't appeared to read this new objection / report. There are plenty of figures for him to pour over.

So I'll show you some of them...

Need Capacity

"The growth rates employed are significantly higher than current forecasts and this assessment can no longer be regarded as being up-to-date.
Even adopting the 2008 forecasts, the capacity arising by 2017 (31,361 sq.m net), would be exceeded by the application proposals (22,668 sq.m net) and the existing permitted additional floorspace at Monks Cross (16,281 sq.m net) i.e. comprising a total of 38,949 sq.m net of additional open A1 floorspace at Monks Cross."


Impact – Methodological Flaws and Omissions

"The Applicant has also failed to adequately consider impact
This review concludes that the Applicant’s retail assessment is seriously flawed in several respects, and as such does not provide a credible basis upon which to assess the relevant impacts under EC16. In particular: -

 The expenditure growth rates employed up to the design year of 2016 (which have the effect of offsetting forecast impact) are unrealistic. The Applicant employs growth rates of 1.3% for 2009 – 2010 and 3.7% for 2010 – 2016. The latest Experian guidance published in November 2011 indicates growth rates of 0.1% for 2009 – 2010 and 2.5% for 2010 – 2016. Given the economic challenges and low spending growth expected over the next few years, the Applicant’s growth rates over this timescale are inappropriate."


Impact on York City Centre

"The Applicant’s claim that the proposals will take a significant proportion of trade from Leeds (£12.7m), Hull (£14.86m) and Harrogate (£5.12m) does not bear scrutiny. As identified by the Applicant, there are major committed and planned developments in these and other competing centres which will reinforce their performance at the expense of York City Centre.

We acknowledge that a major retail development at Monks Cross may serve to recapture a proportion of the trade which will otherwise be lost to improved facilities in these centres. However, this completely ignores the cumulative impact of the proposals on the City Centre."


"This supports our view that at least 50% of the proposal’s turnover is likely to be diverted from the City Centre. On this basis, we consider circa £80m of trade will be lost directly from the City Centre to the Oakgate proposals, ignoring the additional effects of competing developments in neighbouring city centres (e.g. Leeds, Hull, Doncaster and Darlington) and at Monks Cross itself. On this basis we consider a more realistic assessment of cumulative impact, taking into account these other developments, is likely to be in the range of 15-20% (at least £95m) of total sales of the City Centre at the design year of 2016."

NB

I still don't see where his £12m 'benefit' comes from in his application.

And the Press keep repeating his '1000 new jobs' misdirection.

Septimius Severus wrote:
It's a shame Mr France hasn't appeared to read this new objection / report. There are plenty of figures for him to pour over.

So I'll show you some of them...

Need Capacity

"The growth rates employed are significantly higher than current forecasts and this assessment can no longer be regarded as being up-to-date.
Even adopting the 2008 forecasts, the capacity arising by 2017 (31,361 sq.m net), would be exceeded by the application proposals (22,668 sq.m net) and the existing permitted additional floorspace at Monks Cross (16,281 sq.m net) i.e. comprising a total of 38,949 sq.m net of additional open A1 floorspace at Monks Cross."


Impact – Methodological Flaws and Omissions

"The Applicant has also failed to adequately consider impact
This review concludes that the Applicant’s retail assessment is seriously flawed in several respects, and as such does not provide a credible basis upon which to assess the relevant impacts under EC16. In particular: -

 The expenditure growth rates employed up to the design year of 2016 (which have the effect of offsetting forecast impact) are unrealistic. The Applicant employs growth rates of 1.3% for 2009 – 2010 and 3.7% for 2010 – 2016. The latest Experian guidance published in November 2011 indicates growth rates of 0.1% for 2009 – 2010 and 2.5% for 2010 – 2016. Given the economic challenges and low spending growth expected over the next few years, the Applicant’s growth rates over this timescale are inappropriate."


Impact on York City Centre

"The Applicant’s claim that the proposals will take a significant proportion of trade from Leeds (£12.7m), Hull (£14.86m) and Harrogate (£5.12m) does not bear scrutiny. As identified by the Applicant, there are major committed and planned developments in these and other competing centres which will reinforce their performance at the expense of York City Centre.

We acknowledge that a major retail development at Monks Cross may serve to recapture a proportion of the trade which will otherwise be lost to improved facilities in these centres. However, this completely ignores the cumulative impact of the proposals on the City Centre."


"This supports our view that at least 50% of the proposal’s turnover is likely to be diverted from the City Centre. On this basis, we consider circa £80m of trade will be lost directly from the City Centre to the Oakgate proposals, ignoring the additional effects of competing developments in neighbouring city centres (e.g. Leeds, Hull, Doncaster and Darlington) and at Monks Cross itself. On this basis we consider a more realistic assessment of cumulative impact, taking into account these other developments, is likely to be in the range of 15-20% (at least £95m) of total sales of the City Centre at the design year of 2016."

NB

I still don't see where his £12m 'benefit' comes from in his application.

And the Press keep repeating his '1000 new jobs' misdirection.

As a resident of York I vary rarely go into the City centre to shop as it is too much hassle, and even do my banking on the outskirts, and I suspect the majority of people in Greater York do likewise. York has a very strong tourist trade and that is why the centre thrives so well. therefore 2 extra shops will not have a great effect the City centre as it will not draw the tourists away. Using models of other towns without a strong tourist industry is like comparing chalk with cheese. Before you ask I have NEVER EVER been to see York City play so cannot be accused of being a fan.

I notice there are some empty shops in the city centre when I walked around yesterday.

This is before there's any additional competition.

As someone has already pointed out, the problem clearly isn't (just) the new shopping centre - its not even there yet.

In order to compete with the internet, retailers have to be able to meeet their prices and offer that little bit extra - I think its called custoemr service.

How about York offers a reduced business rate, free parking, and goes some way to leveling the playing field for the smaller retailers who want to trade in the city? Then they could spend some of the profit that they will hopefully make on training their staff to make it such a delight people will want to come to buy in town, rather than through any other way?

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
I notice there are some empty shops in the city centre when I walked around yesterday. This is before there's any additional competition. As someone has already pointed out, the problem clearly isn't (just) the new shopping centre - its not even there yet. In order to compete with the internet, retailers have to be able to meeet their prices and offer that little bit extra - I think its called custoemr service. How about York offers a reduced business rate, free parking, and goes some way to leveling the playing field for the smaller retailers who want to trade in the city? Then they could spend some of the profit that they will hopefully make on training their staff to make it such a delight people will want to come to buy in town, rather than through any other way?

All good suggestions that have been put on here before. I would like to see rent go down, cheaper buses etc to make the centre an all round cheaper place for everyone.
While there's no issue with what you say, firstly, it should be remembered that the empty shops you see, while disheartening, are still the third lowest amount in the country so York does do extremely well anyway here. The City also bucks the trend in a number of ways which are all positive for the City (this with 3 entire out of town centres already).
Secondly, while these things could/should take place, it's of no direct issue to having the two news stores at MX. The chance to have a JL at MX is a good one, will improve the City's economy and people want it. Therefore it shouldn't be shunted. The empty shops etc is simply another issue and there's no reason why people can't ask for both and indeed have both.
There's never been an either/or scenario here.

Some people want the press to do a poll for and against the development, well instead i've counted all the objection letters and support letters to the COYC from ther planning aplication and the results stan as;

In Objection - 418

In Support - 664

so that 61% for and 39% Against

I live in the centre... The cost of fuel means I'm loathed to start my car to drive out of town to a soul-less place like MX (Or indeed Designer Outlet).

It's a bit daft to think most people who live in the centre want to get in their cars, or worse, buses, to head out of town for stuff you can get in town, or even better still, online... (Sorry traders, but it's a financially tight world out there)

I think there are serious flaws currently with the new proposals and/or stadia... I just hope CYC don't push them through for the sake of it, and really make damned sure what they do is sustainable both financially and environmentally (on account of government targets to cut emissions).

Don't get too excited though PP, who in their right mind is going to strap a sofa on the back of their back and then get on a bike? This ain't no cycling lobby thing.

Now come on, The Press. This is supposed to be a Democracy where everyone can comment on what is written and said. Not one of the comments that were written that I have read and wrote (like others) were in anyway `false, abusive or malicious` and it is only 30 mins ago since I last looked before going out for a while.

Ignore my above comment - they suddenly appeared again. Wonder if taken off and then put quickly back on again!

Do York Chamber of Trade own this paper or what? They are in it more than the weather. What IS going on?

johnabostock wrote:
Also, for a change: let`s have something done for York RESIDENTS and not tourists, since we put a lot of our money into the City of York through Council Tax.

Whereas tourists merely spend money which they don't have to, keeping 25,000 people in jobs.

bloodaxe wrote:

johnabostock wrote:
Also, for a change: let`s have something done for York RESIDENTS and not tourists, since we put a lot of our money into the City of York through Council Tax.

Whereas tourists merely spend money which they don't have to, keeping 25,000 people in jobs.

In fairness, I think the nub is the two are not mutually exclusive, no matter what some might like you to believe.

Septimius Severus wrote:
It's a shame Mr France hasn't appeared to read this new objection / report. There are plenty of figures for him to pour over.

So I'll show you some of them...

Need Capacity

"The growth rates employed are significantly higher than current forecasts and this assessment can no longer be regarded as being up-to-date.
Even adopting the 2008 forecasts, the capacity arising by 2017 (31,361 sq.m net), would be exceeded by the application proposals (22,668 sq.m net) and the existing permitted additional floorspace at Monks Cross (16,281 sq.m net) i.e. comprising a total of 38,949 sq.m net of additional open A1 floorspace at Monks Cross."


Impact – Methodological Flaws and Omissions

"The Applicant has also failed to adequately consider impact
This review concludes that the Applicant’s retail assessment is seriously flawed in several respects, and as such does not provide a credible basis upon which to assess the relevant impacts under EC16. In particular: -

 The expenditure growth rates employed up to the design year of 2016 (which have the effect of offsetting forecast impact) are unrealistic. The Applicant employs growth rates of 1.3% for 2009 – 2010 and 3.7% for 2010 – 2016. The latest Experian guidance published in November 2011 indicates growth rates of 0.1% for 2009 – 2010 and 2.5% for 2010 – 2016. Given the economic challenges and low spending growth expected over the next few years, the Applicant’s growth rates over this timescale are inappropriate."


Impact on York City Centre

"The Applicant’s claim that the proposals will take a significant proportion of trade from Leeds (£12.7m), Hull (£14.86m) and Harrogate (£5.12m) does not bear scrutiny. As identified by the Applicant, there are major committed and planned developments in these and other competing centres which will reinforce their performance at the expense of York City Centre.

We acknowledge that a major retail development at Monks Cross may serve to recapture a proportion of the trade which will otherwise be lost to improved facilities in these centres. However, this completely ignores the cumulative impact of the proposals on the City Centre."


"This supports our view that at least 50% of the proposal’s turnover is likely to be diverted from the City Centre. On this basis, we consider circa £80m of trade will be lost directly from the City Centre to the Oakgate proposals, ignoring the additional effects of competing developments in neighbouring city centres (e.g. Leeds, Hull, Doncaster and Darlington) and at Monks Cross itself. On this basis we consider a more realistic assessment of cumulative impact, taking into account these other developments, is likely to be in the range of 15-20% (at least £95m) of total sales of the City Centre at the design year of 2016."

NB

I still don't see where his £12m 'benefit' comes from in his application.

And the Press keep repeating his '1000 new jobs' misdirection.

You've posted a lot of claims and suppositions by someone who is against the proposal. Are we supposed to be impressed?
If you like, I'll cut and paste all 641 official comments supporting the scheme. Won't make anything less true though, or are we supposed to just take GVA are gospel because the York Chamber of Trade tell us to.
Unbelievable.

bloodaxe wrote:

johnabostock wrote:
Also, for a change: let`s have something done for York RESIDENTS and not tourists, since we put a lot of our money into the City of York through Council Tax.

Whereas tourists merely spend money which they don't have to, keeping 25,000 people in jobs.

What is wrong with both sides, residents and tourists, working in tandem or do we residents just hand over our Council Tax and expect nothing back. Tourists may bring in money to the City but residents pay for services AND also the upkeep of the City.

You get, or rather the community gets, an enormous amount from the council tax. As I've said before, services for older people, schools and young people's services are very good in York and these are all supported by council tax. Parks and recreation spaces are very well maintained. On top of this, the police and fire service are paid for by council tax. As the government in its infinite wisdom will not allow local authorities to raise money through local income taxes which would only hit those who could afford to pay and further, does not inaugurate a system of full electoral accountability this leaves the very imperfect system which we have currently. The only way in which councils can raise additional revenue is through car park charges. This certainly isn't fair but the alternative is cutting back on services or raising council tax, which HMG constrains. The proposals for more out of town shopping seem to hand easy money to developers via free parking while expecting very little from them I compensation for the additional strain on inadequate road systems, unnecessary car journeys and reduced footfall in inner city shops. Clearly York has thus far been able to cope with competition from existing out of town shopping though the likelihood of further major development in the centre is reduced if these proposals go ahead. I think that the smaller specialist shops will survive and the city can offer an experience which Monk's Cross will never match but cities are fragile ecologies and need careful tending.

An opinion paid for by York Chamber of trade, with very little evidence to back it up. At least Oakgates proposals have some statistical evidence to back up its claims.

Even, Speaks, etc...

The article on which I commented on is about a letter of objection. The Press printed none of 'the numbers' and Mr France commented that the report contained no numbers.

It is therefore reasonable to redress this.

Read the letter in full and see the basis for the objections.

NB The Oakgate impact assessment is not 'statistical evidence' if the analysis is flawed and omits required detail.

Yet at the same time the MD of Oakgate is allowed to repeat unfounded assertions regarding benefits.

If objections are roughly 2/3 of support numbers then it is not a minority.

And the Campaign For York has only just started whereas the Campaign Against York has had months longer to make its comments. The trend is with us.

Septimius Severus wrote:
Even, Speaks, etc...

The article on which I commented on is about a letter of objection. The Press printed none of 'the numbers' and Mr France commented that the report contained no numbers.

It is therefore reasonable to redress this.

Read the letter in full and see the basis for the objections.

NB The Oakgate impact assessment is not 'statistical evidence' if the analysis is flawed and omits required detail.

Yet at the same time the MD of Oakgate is allowed to repeat unfounded assertions regarding benefits.

If objections are roughly 2/3 of support numbers then it is not a minority.

And the Campaign For York has only just started whereas the Campaign Against York has had months longer to make its comments. The trend is with us.

1/10 for that response. The "Campaign for York" (lol) started in November. Its now February. That isn't quite the same as "only just started" what with its poster and leafleting campaign, plus its tear off slip to allow you to post your objection without actually having to write anything but your name and address.
Where as the Campaign for Progression (I just titled that but am quite proud of it lol) isn't actually a campaign at all. A few comments on the press website against related articles is hardly a campaign. So whilst you're there gloating about how well the traders are doing drumming up their objections, perhaps look at in context. Bleak isn't it, and when someone finally gets round to doing a decent poll of shoppers it will only get bleaker.

The Oakgate evidence is flawed coming from a business being paid to oppose the plans. What did you expect them to say? Come on, you've been using this argument about Oakgate for a long time, but the same applies to your report.

Tried to find the objection letter on the planning website. Couldn't so can't read it in full. I look forward to reading all the statistical analysis Grimley have done, rather than the 5 minutes of internet research that is showing in your text above, though.

Septimius Severus wrote:
Even, Speaks, etc...

The article on which I commented on is about a letter of objection. The Press printed none of 'the numbers' and Mr France commented that the report contained no numbers.

It is therefore reasonable to redress this.

Read the letter in full and see the basis for the objections.

NB The Oakgate impact assessment is not 'statistical evidence' if the analysis is flawed and omits required detail.

Yet at the same time the MD of Oakgate is allowed to repeat unfounded assertions regarding benefits.

If objections are roughly 2/3 of support numbers then it is not a minority.

And the Campaign For York has only just started whereas the Campaign Against York has had months longer to make its comments. The trend is with us.

Oh dear.

Campaign against York - priceless! You should be on stage....

We should go to a zoo just to ask an untrained monkey "which side like and care about York the most; the side that take the consideration of all people in York and their need while talking about how great York is and showing it in a good light. Or the side that belittle it at every corner, seemingly don't care for the locals and compare York to Castleford...that's, Castleford?"

The monkey would probably slap me for asking such a stupid question! Working out which is a triangle and which a square is probably more of a brain teaser.

On a more serious note, one side try and get a proper campaign up and running, have 1,000s of leaflets paid and printed for them and even pay to have a report to favour them, all which results in about 20 shops display a cringey poster and a 100 people filling out a questionarre while the other side sits there doing literally nothing yet is the clear majority opinion wondering what the other side are going to make up next.

That, I do believe, is what the kids refer to as an 'epic fail'.

I enjoy toying with them though,it passes a few minutes here and there

Sarah York wrote:
On a more serious note, one side try and get a proper campaign up and running, have 1,000s of leaflets paid and printed for them and even pay to have a report to favour them, all which results in about 20 shops display a cringey poster and a 100 people filling out a questionarre while the other side sits there doing literally nothing yet is the clear majority opinion wondering what the other side are going to make up next.

That, I do believe, is what the kids refer to as an 'epic fail'.

I enjoy toying with them though,it passes a few minutes here and there

It was 20,000 leaflets wasn't it, plus a load of posters?

Even AndyD wrote:

Sarah York wrote:
On a more serious note, one side try and get a proper campaign up and running, have 1,000s of leaflets paid and printed for them and even pay to have a report to favour them, all which results in about 20 shops display a cringey poster and a 100 people filling out a questionarre while the other side sits there doing literally nothing yet is the clear majority opinion wondering what the other side are going to make up next.

That, I do believe, is what the kids refer to as an 'epic fail'.

I enjoy toying with them though,it passes a few minutes here and there

It was 20,000 leaflets wasn't it, plus a load of posters?

Don't forget the easy option of not having to do anything to complain, just fill your name and address on an easy to tear off form that has been distributed.

How would stores at monks cross "pressurise York's transport network"? Monks Cross is ideally situated for extra vehicles. Granted the main roundabout gets a bit busy on a saturday, but compared to the city centre MX is free flowing! It's right near the A64, and if the A1036 was re-routed along the dual carriageway out to a new junction at the A1237 which replaced the smaller roundabout at Hopgrove so the A1237 could be dual from MX to the big Hopgrove roundabout with a flyover towards Leeds direction (and similar for reverse) then it would be the most accessible shopping area in the city.
And who knows, with more shops maybe First might run the number 13 a bit later than 5pm?!

The C4Y (hate that name, why do the traders insist it is 'their' York?) - campaign claim green-issues as part of their argument against MX2, but then want free parking in the centre to boost their trade. Forgive me, but isn't this a little hypocritical? Are you for less car journeys, guys, or not?

I do all my shopping for food out of the city at tesco or asda, i do all my shopping for white goods/tech online, the city centre can go and fall off the edge of google maps for me....

But I dont see why you shopkeepers scared of losing profit, and from me you see none, should dictate that I cant have more out of town shopping that I WOULD use...

you cant turn back the tide, city centres are so 1960's .... its online now, get with it....

If you want more information on the plans visit the campaign for york website (www.campaign4york.c
o.uk)

There's a simple form that links directly to the planning department at the council you can submit.

If you want more information on the plans visit the stadium for York website (www.astadiumforyork .com).

There's a simple form that you can fill in to support the new Community Stadium Project.