City united on community stadium plan (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
City united on York community stadium plan
10:45am Friday 17th February 2012 in Community stadium news
York City Knights chief executive John Guildford has added his support to the building of a new community stadium at Monks Cross after his concerns over the project were addressed and allayed at a groundbreaking meeting.
Following discussions with York City chairman Jason McGill and City of York Athletics Club chairman Neil Hunter, Guildford is now backing the Oakgate retail development plan that will see the football club and rugby league club share a venue.
Under the proposal, the athletics club will also move to new facilities at the University of York, while new John Lewis and Marks & Spencer stores will be built as enabling developments at the Huntington site.
Guildford previously talked about his fears for the scheme’s sustainability, income-generating potential and provision of training facilities for the Knights but the three clubs have now come to a collective agreement on how the new stadium can meet the requirements of all parties involved.
The Community Stadium Advisory Group, also involving representatives from City of York Council and Active York, will now meet next week when it is hoped their combined support will be added to the principles agreed between the clubs.
Explaining his stance, Knights chief Guildford said: “I have always supported the principle of a community stadium and, now my basic questions and concerns have been addressed, the Knights obviously support the vision. I am looking forward to the final business case being presented and being actively involved in the final design stages of the project.”
On behalf of the Minstermen, McGill added: “Great strides forward were made at the meeting and many of York City Knights’ original concerns have now been addressed. We are delighted the Knights are now on board and fully support the community stadium.
“We never wanted to see the Knights disadvantaged in any way and look forward to sharing the new facility with them and working with them more closely in the future.”
City of York Athletics Club chairman, Neil Hunter also stressed the importance of the meeting, saying: “It was great to see the two professional sports clubs in York working together alongside the project team to create the vision for a way in which the community stadium can be sustainable and fully achieve its sporting and community objectives.
“It was an exciting evening and I am more optimistic than ever that the dream of a new community stadium, along with a modern athletics facility at the University Sports Village, will become a reality.”
All three clubs are now encouraging their supporters to get behind the planning application for the new community stadium to demonstrate the passion for new, modern, sports facilities in York to ensure professional football, rugby league, athletics and community sport can flourish.
Kersten England, City of York Council’s chief exceutive, also welcomed the three clubs’ now unanimous support for the new community stadium vision.
She said: “The project is at a crucial point in its development and it is incredibly important to us to have the support and active involvement of all three professional clubs in the city at this time, so that we can maximise the benefits for York residents.
“This is a great boost for the Community Stadium Project, confirming it is in the best interest for all sport in this city – both professional and community based.”
Stadium given a sporting chance
THE prospect of a new community stadium for York has taken a big step forward now that York City Knights have officially thrown their weight behind the scheme.
Knights chief executive John Guildford said in a statement that the club’s basic concerns and questions over the stadium had been addressed.
“I am looking forward to the final business case being presented and being actively involved in the final design stages,” he said.
That means that finally the stadium plans have the agreement of all three sports clubs – the Knights, York City and City of York Athletics Club – that will be most directly affected.
“This is a great boost for the community stadium project,” said City of York Council chief executive Kersten England. And so it is.
There is a long way to go yet. Council planners still have to decide – probably on March 22 – whether the benefits to York of the community stadium outweigh the possible impact on city-centre traders of allowing more shops to be built at Monks Cross.
Many retailers are deeply worried about the impact on their livelihoods. Their concerns must be listened to and taken into account.
Many ordinary city residents, however, might well welcome a John Lewis store in York, even out at Monks Cross. And Oakgate, the developers behind the scheme, argue it will benefit the city’s economy as a whole, attracting extra shoppers and helping York compete with rival centres such as Leeds.
It will be up to planners to weigh all this in the balance, and come to a decision on what they think is in the best interests of the city. But at least now there is general agreement within the sporting community that in sporting terms the community stadium would be good for York.
Comments(73)
Zetkin
says...
10:54am Fri 17 Feb 12
I'm delighted that the Knights, YCFC, and the athletes have got together to discuss and negotiate this and reached a sensible agreement that satisifes all parties.
Mike Oxuge
says...
10:59am Fri 17 Feb 12
paintitred
says...
11:02am Fri 17 Feb 12
now maybe we can move forwards together.
a knock-out blow for the anti MX2 gang.
The Great Buda
says...
11:02am Fri 17 Feb 12
I'm sure all three clubs will still have worries and doubts as the plans move forward, but they are better tackled together.
walwynwasgod
says...
11:03am Fri 17 Feb 12
Concentrate on the article. Your man has finally come on board. Lets get on with the positives now and work together for the City of York and its future.
Sir Alex
says...
11:05am Fri 17 Feb 12
Now lets work on Barnitts, Bettys and co.!!
kanchelskis
says...
11:09am Fri 17 Feb 12
Both clubs now need to get behind the scheme to ensure that it goes ahead to benefit both professional and Community sport in the City.
After all this time that wasn't so difficult to sort by the sounds of it. Shame these discussion couldn't have been had months ago when the Knights were asking the same questions.
kanchelskis
says...
11:14am Fri 17 Feb 12
kanchelskis wrote:Apologies my post should have stated all THREE clubs need to get behind the scheme (etc)
Fantastic news regarding the Knights concerns been addressed. Let's hope now that the Council will deliver what the clubs have agreed to.
Both clubs now need to get behind the scheme to ensure that it goes ahead to benefit both professional and Community sport in the City.
After all this time that wasn't so difficult to sort by the sounds of it. Shame these discussion couldn't have been had months ago when the Knights were asking the same questions.
Mike Oxuge
says...
11:19am Fri 17 Feb 12
paintitred
says...
11:21am Fri 17 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge wrote:Dont bite hes not worth it!!
So, City fans, does that mean we've called off the witchhunt or what? We still planning on running people out of town or are we all happy now?
redbluelion
says...
11:24am Fri 17 Feb 12
walwynwasgod
says...
11:25am Fri 17 Feb 12
There was no "witchhunt". The majority of us were repeating that if you attend meetings, you get answers. You don't get answers by voicing concerns to the Press. Simple really ! Yes, we are happy now.
Kanchelskis
Good to see that ALL 3 clubs are behind the scheme now. Its took long enough and precious time for JG to get on board. Bring on March 22nd !
kanchelskis
says...
11:31am Fri 17 Feb 12
walwynwasgod wrote:I understand that this was a separate meetings to the Community Stadium Advisory Group meetings as the issues discussed and agreed on had never been addressed in that forum, hence the Knights not supporting the scheme until now.
Mike Oxuge
There was no "witchhunt". The majority of us were repeating that if you attend meetings, you get answers. You don't get answers by voicing concerns to the Press. Simple really ! Yes, we are happy now.
Kanchelskis
Good to see that ALL 3 clubs are behind the scheme now. Its took long enough and precious time for JG to get on board. Bring on March 22nd !
Fat Harry
says...
11:32am Fri 17 Feb 12
Everyone to the Guildhall for (fingers crossed) the next step on March 22nd!
walwynwasgod
says...
11:37am Fri 17 Feb 12
It was a meeting and thats what counts. I couldn't care less what sort of meeting it was, but JG attended and got some answers.
selbyred
says...
11:41am Fri 17 Feb 12
Mike Oxuge wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
So, City fans, does that mean we've called off the witchhunt or what? We still planning on running people out of town or are we all happy now?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
!
walwynwasgod
says...
11:49am Fri 17 Feb 12
Totally agree. Some people feel as though the whole worlds against them. Sad !
Eric Bartholomew
says...
11:50am Fri 17 Feb 12
That would be one big spanner removed from the works,as the 'nay sayers' would certainly use it in their arguements against the scheme.
It's good to see all the Sporting clubs involved are now singing from the same hymn sheet.
Hopefully they can work work together to a conclusion that will hopefully benefit themselves,and also enhance the Community spirit that sport can bring to many in a City.
rogue84
says...
11:56am Fri 17 Feb 12
is it a public event?
Zetkin
says...
11:58am Fri 17 Feb 12
I thibk it's game on!
kanchelskis
says...
12:02pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Paul29
says...
12:06pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YorkCityLuke
says...
12:09pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew
says...
12:12pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Paul29 wrote:Boom tish!...:-)
I would say Jason's wearing a Meryl Streep wig but then again it would probably not be Sophie's choice.
Eric Bartholomew
says...
12:29pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YorkCityLuke wrote:You can't make the comparison with Darlington or Kettering really,they are 2 basket cases,with a different set of problems and circumstances that has brought them to the position they are in.
I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?
In comparison look at Chesterfield,Shrewsb
ury and others that have built out of town,they seem to have thrived on the move with increased attendances
I'm not saying it would all work out great for YCFC,but in today's world out of town shopping and football grounds seem to be the way things are going.
I would say if the new stadium had a proposed capacity of 8 to 10,000 with full stands on each side,then reservations some have on it's size would be allayed.
Sarah York
says...
12:42pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YorkCityLuke wrote:As a YCFC fan (apparently) why would you want to go part-time, watch cr@p football, get relegated, lose loads of money and eventually go bust? Seems a little odd.
I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?
Also the development isn't 'sprawling into the countyside'. There are strict rules about that and one plan has already been knocked back because of it.
Also which sites specifically are decaying and why do you feel that this plan would put an end to ALL types of inner City refurbishment from small to large?
walwynwasgod
says...
12:44pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Kettering have moved around 10 miles. Like you say different problems and circumstances. Darlo being run by crooks and Property developers.
York City Luke
Part Time could spell the death of the club. True supporters will make the effort to get to the new stadium and the land closer to the City Centre will be far more expensive.
Yeahbutno
says...
12:50pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I would now like to see some firm facts and figures which justify this development from York City's point of view.
Zetkin
says...
12:55pm Fri 17 Feb 12
The meeting will be open to the public and starts at 4.30pm, according to the council website.
I think there's going to be a lobby/demonstration outside beforehand to show the councillors the depth of support for the stadium, so I guess it would be good for as many people as possible to get down there.
YorkCityLuke
says...
12:56pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Sarah York wrote:Why would a York City fan want to leave BC? City could easily survive at the current level as a part time team (a fair few teams already do). Plus, you can go back to full-time from part-time... you can't go back to BC once its demolished for houses.
YorkCityLuke wrote:As a YCFC fan (apparently) why would you want to go part-time, watch cr@p football, get relegated, lose loads of money and eventually go bust? Seems a little odd.
I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?
Also the development isn't 'sprawling into the countyside'. There are strict rules about that and one plan has already been knocked back because of it.
Also which sites specifically are decaying and why do you feel that this plan would put an end to ALL types of inner City refurbishment from small to large?
walwynwasgod
says...
1:06pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Guildford's concerns have finally been addressed. End of matter !
If you want to keep boring us with your anti-McGill rants, feel free. You know what to do, get yourself to a Fans forum through a representative that you know and address them face to face. Otherwise, do us all a favour and stop repeating yourself !
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:11pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Wasn't the Council's last valuation £3.7m (see Press article dated 17-Oct-08 entitled 'This Sporting Strife' - use the website search engine to pull up the piece).
What is it worth now ?
Here's a clue:-
In 2008 the Council''s affordable housing target was 50%, but it has come down to 25% now.
You would expect that this would increase BC's value, because less subsidised affordable housing is to be provided, meaning the land value should increase. Hope you follow this logic. If not ask a builder (like John Guildford) or a surveyor to explain.
Anyway, here's the show stopper.... it's value has bombed, big style.
Based on values used by Dr Richard Fordham in the Council's Affordable Housing Viability Study, and taking account of abnormals (demolition, site clearance, decontamination) it's value is between £250,000 - £500,000 ! That is not the pricve per acre, by the way, it's the whole 4.23 acre site.
Pick that one out of the back of the net Bill Woolley - he's the guy in charge. In charge of the community stadium for the Council, and in charge of the officers who wrote the affordable housing policy. Amazing, that this man hasn't got a clue how his own policies can kill projects. Well Billy boy, have a taste of your own medicine. You killed off housebuilding in York with the help of your officers and the complicit councillors, and you have now jeopardised this deal. How will you cook the books this time ?
Maybe it's time to resign, before you get your P45 ?
walwynwasgod
says...
1:12pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Nobody wants to leave BC. The upkeep for the stadium is unaffordable. As for Part-Time football, we would soon be welcoming the likes of Taddy Albion (no disrespect to them !) and lose a perfectly good manager in Gary Mills.Support would then dwindle and the ground would rot.
TerryYork
says...
1:26pm Fri 17 Feb 12
As far as the moron who said he'd rather City stay at BC and go part time, well he's not a real York City supporter, obviously.
Even AndyD
says...
1:34pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Forget what has gone before - lets get this thing built now and move on.
city_view
says...
1:35pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Anonymoose
says...
1:41pm Fri 17 Feb 12
This news has the chance to see some real sporting success brought to the City.
Sarah York
says...
1:46pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YorkCityLuke wrote:Not really sure if you're winding us up here. York City go part-time then that's it, it's part time forever. A new team would have to be bought, a rubbish one at that, they will not get higher than 18th, crowds were only around 2,200-400 with a cr@p full-time team a few years ago for most games. That would drop to 1,500 because of the quality on the pitch. There's no conincidence that City have been getting 3,000 in home fans alone this season, it's because people will pay to watch good football, not part-timers trying to stave of relegation. In your plan YCFC would be 1,500 fans lesser off per game (than now) = 37500 for 25 home games a season = around £375,000 on ticket money each year (£10 average although it's really £11). Less commercial being taken out on top of that. Two season's of that and there'll be houses on BC anyway. Believe me.
Sarah York wrote:Why would a York City fan want to leave BC? City could easily survive at the current level as a part time team (a fair few teams already do). Plus, you can go back to full-time from part-time... you can't go back to BC once its demolished for houses.YorkCityLuke wrote: I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?As a YCFC fan (apparently) why would you want to go part-time, watch cr@p football, get relegated, lose loads of money and eventually go bust? Seems a little odd. Also the development isn't 'sprawling into the countyside'. There are strict rules about that and one plan has already been knocked back because of it. Also which sites specifically are decaying and why do you feel that this plan would put an end to ALL types of inner City refurbishment from small to large?
selbyred
says...
1:48pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YorkCityLuke wrote:If the club stayed at B.C and went part time,any chance of getting back into the football league would completly vanish.I find your comment to be very strange to say the least.
I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?
Zetkin
says...
1:50pm Fri 17 Feb 12
If the community stadium does not happen, the FSIF will demand their loan back.
The only way City can raise £2million is by selling Bootham Crescent.
Therefore the club will become homeless.
Perhaps we can then beg for a groundshare? Somewhere like, oh, I know, Huntington Stadium.
An undeveloped Huntington Stadium, where part-time YCFC could quite happily survive at Evostick Premier level.
The derby games with Whitby Town and Bradford Park Avenue should be quite something.
Yeahbutno
says...
1:51pm Fri 17 Feb 12
walwynwasgod wrote:I've posted ONE COMMENT on this thread...and it doesn't mention McGill at all.
Yeahbutno
Guildford's concerns have finally been addressed. End of matter !
If you want to keep boring us with your anti-McGill rants, feel free. You know what to do, get yourself to a Fans forum through a representative that you know and address them face to face. Otherwise, do us all a favour and stop repeating yourself !
You need your blood pressure checking!
walwynwasgod
says...
2:08pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Sorry. I thought you meant Mr McGill when you wanted to know York City's point of view. K******d. Sorry, that WAS childish !
walwynwasgod
says...
2:13pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Yeahbutno
says...
2:44pm Fri 17 Feb 12
walwynwasgod
says...
2:48pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Its not meant to be personal. Just a difference of opinion. True, we both love York City !
Zetkin
says...
3:10pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Even Mr Guildford.
walwynwasgod
says...
3:13pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
3:17pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I wonder if that 'business case' needs to be shown to him before 22/3?
If so, JG's a bright guy... 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.' If he doesn't like the numbers he could pull the wool out from underneath the whole thing.
If not, JG's possibly been lured into a false sense of security and had the wool pulled over his eyes to keep him quiet till the deal is done.
walwynwasgod
says...
3:22pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I'm sure all will be revealed. For the time being, let us welcome him on board, even though he could be a difficult man to work with.
Jam tomorrow
says...
3:49pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:00pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Jam tomorrow wrote:You obviously have inside information ?
Based solely on the above article and comments, I would say the Knights medium term plan is to buy and then move into Bootham Crescent. They don't need to demolish. That would also remove 'Sport England's' objection.
Has JG done a deal with JMcG to buy BC ? Maybe Oakgate are bankrolling the deal ?
Zetkin
says...
4:01pm Fri 17 Feb 12
YCFC, the Athletics Club and CoYC aren't run by stupid people either, Septimius, as you well know.
They're aware of the potential pitfalls, but you can't duck out of a scheme because there might be problems along the way.
Everyone has demonstrated a lot of goodwill and flexibility to get this far. I see no reason why this can't be built upon.
As you say, it depends on the final business case. But that has to be robust enough to satisfy everyone anyway, not just Mr Guildford.
Sarah York
says...
4:02pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Jam tomorrow wrote:Sport England's "objections" (they never ojected it, they are there to advise on certain things and make sure the right things are done) were pretty much in the same vein as the Knights and included a loss of a pitch etc. These new plans address some of these and therefore Sport's England will lean more and more to them 'accepting' it (although it's still not in their jurisdiction to have the ultimate say)
Based solely on the above article and comments, I would say the Knights medium term plan is to buy and then move into Bootham Crescent. They don't need to demolish. That would also remove 'Sport England's' objection.
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:05pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Zetkin wrote:Deals within deals, Zetkin.
Jam tomorrow - surely you know that Persimmon still have first refusal on buying Bootham Crescent, so anyone wanting to get hold of it to scupper the community stadium will need to be able to buy them off as well as come up with the cash to purchase the ground itself. YCFC, the Athletics Club and CoYC aren't run by stupid people either, Septimius, as you well know. They're aware of the potential pitfalls, but you can't duck out of a scheme because there might be problems along the way. Everyone has demonstrated a lot of goodwill and flexibility to get this far. I see no reason why this can't be built upon. As you say, it depends on the final business case. But that has to be robust enough to satisfy everyone anyway, not just Mr Guildford.
Persimmon agree inflated AH levels at Germany Beck, in return for planning for student accoommodation on the Barbican so they can sell that site, they also agree to forego their option on BC so JG can buy it from JMcG/YCFC with Oakgate bankrolling it.
They all get what they want, with York residents in effect footing the bill, and being left with the risk if it all goes t*ts up !
Even AndyD
says...
7:25pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Jam tomorrow wrote:Fantasy - plus Sport England wasn't an objection, it was a seeking clarification.
Based solely on the above article and comments, I would say the Knights medium term plan is to buy and then move into Bootham Crescent. They don't need to demolish. That would also remove 'Sport England's' objection.
Even AndyD
says...
8:11pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:This is only a wild shot in the dark, so forgive me if I'm wrong. But do you also believe the moon landings never happened, aliens have infiltrated government and Elvis is is currently second guitar as South Bank club?
Jam tomorrow wrote:You obviously have inside information ?
Based solely on the above article and comments, I would say the Knights medium term plan is to buy and then move into Bootham Crescent. They don't need to demolish. That would also remove 'Sport England's' objection.
Has JG done a deal with JMcG to buy BC ? Maybe Oakgate are bankrolling the deal ?
speaks99
says...
8:16pm Fri 17 Feb 12
goreds
says...
8:31pm Fri 17 Feb 12
DIE CRAIG
big boy york
says...
9:01pm Fri 17 Feb 12
JONNYGOODSHOES
says...
9:53pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew
says...
10:08pm Fri 17 Feb 12
JONNYGOODSHOES wrote:You'll catch a few with that one.
Cant see it being built for at least 6 or 7 years.
0/10 from me.
JONNYGOODSHOES
says...
10:33pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:But so true your kidding yourselves if you think otherwise, it will get knocked back time and time again.
JONNYGOODSHOES wrote:You'll catch a few with that one.
Cant see it being built for at least 6 or 7 years.
0/10 from me.
big boy york
says...
10:39pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:its already been said its going to go further by all parties involved al some stage over the last few months jonnygoodshoes is right 6 or 7 years is the least it could take can you see the football foundation waiting till 2020+ for there money back
JONNYGOODSHOES wrote:You'll catch a few with that one.
Cant see it being built for at least 6 or 7 years.
0/10 from me.
KAT1965
says...
8:11am Sat 18 Feb 12
Eric Bartholomew wrote:I agree. Kettering were in trouble well before they moved to Rushden and Darlo - well, there has been enough said about their recent history! These dewy-eyed romanticists would have us still playing football in the streets (jumpers for goalposts and all that). As for urban sprawl, Oakgate did once have plans to develop the site as offices for HBSC - so it was never going to stay green.
YorkCityLuke wrote:You can't make the comparison with Darlington or Kettering really,they are 2 basket cases,with a different set of problems and circumstances that has brought them to the position they are in.
I'd rather City go part time and stay at BC than move out of town. Look at what happened to Darlo and Kettering when they moved to Stadia they could not afford, and that fans could not be bothered to go to. It's a terrible idea, as is the rest of the 'MX2' development. There are so many decaying sites in and around the city centre, what is the point in extending the urban sprawl into our countryside?
In comparison look at Chesterfield,Shrewsb
ury and others that have built out of town,they seem to have thrived on the move with increased attendances
I'm not saying it would all work out great for YCFC,but in today's world out of town shopping and football grounds seem to be the way things are going.
I would say if the new stadium had a proposed capacity of 8 to 10,000 with full stands on each side,then reservations some have on it's size would be allayed.
Even AndyD
says...
8:45am Sat 18 Feb 12
big boy york wrote:Won't be going to sec of state. Go and Google localism and central government. If this is referred, I'll eat my bobble hat and rattle.
lets not count our chickens 99% sure its going to go to the secretary of state who could & more than likely overrule the council this could take a year or more the loans due next year if nothings in place we wont have a club to support anyway 2m is a lot to find & no longer from next season can the mcgills bail us out
Even AndyD
says...
7:00pm Sun 19 Feb 12
At present, of
the 650,000 planning applications submitted each year in England, just 50 – 70
are called in for a decision by the Secretary of State. However, the number of
applications actually called in represents only around five per cent of all the cases
initially referred for consideration.
meme
says...
10:44am Tue 21 Feb 12
You are going to need a lot of sauce to make it palatable as its virtually 100% to be called in given the involvement of York in this.
Even AndyD
says...
1:51pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
1:59pm Wed 22 Feb 12
o.uk)
There's a simple form that links directly to the planning department at the council you can submit.
meme
says...
4:55pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Unfortunately with CoYC having financial input and owning part of the site and the amount of opposition as well as the fact the application breaches all York's planning guidelines you are going to have to make a marzipan hat or have serious indigestion later on!!
Eric Bartholomew
says...
5:39pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Septimius Severus wrote:If you want more information on the plans visit the stadium for York website (www.astadiumforyork
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.
.com).
There's a simple form that you can fill in to support the new Community Stadium Project.
speaks99
says...
9:20pm Wed 22 Feb 12
meme wrote:CoYC wont any any of the site other than the stadium. Its called an enabling development - hundreds go through each year without being called in.
We shall see??
Unfortunately with CoYC having financial input and owning part of the site and the amount of opposition as well as the fact the application breaches all York's planning guidelines you are going to have to make a marzipan hat or have serious indigestion later on!!
I do personally think it will go to inquiry though...
walwynwasgod says...
10:54am Fri 17 Feb 12