A proposal for a massive new out-of-town shopping mall, almost doubling the retail floor space of Monk’s Cross. Developers have submitted two planning applications for a massive expansion of out-of-town shopping at
Monk’s Cross. Oakgate’s proposal to build more than 320,000 sq ft of new retail space will provide huge new stores for M&S, John Lewis and another major retailer right next to Monk’s Cr
oss. USS has also submitted an application to expand the existing shopping centre at Monk’s Cross by another 140,000 sq ft and remove restrictions on the minimum size of its existing units. This is designed to provide the kind of space that will draw both large and small national retailers (as well as their customers) out of town. The combination of these two proposals totals nearly half a million square feet of new retail space, in addition to what is already there. That new space alone is equivalent in size to more than eight football pitches, and when the existing retail warehouses are included, the whole will be on a par with a major regional shopping centre. What is the Campaign4York? The Campaign4York opposes Oakgate’s plans because they would cause immense damage to the city’s
economy and environment. If the Council’s Planning Committee approves the plans, the shopping in York’s city centre – which is already struggling – will simply die as its lifeblood gets sucked out. What are the facts and arguments? Leading planning consultants GVA, prepared an independent report which is the basis of our campaign. GVA was responsible for the City of York Retail Study 2008, and subsequently provided the City Council with further advice in December 2008 and June 2009 in relation to central development opportunities and the York Central opportunity which have subsequently informed the City Council’s emerging policy position. On a wider level, GVA were also authors of the Practice Guidance which accompanies PPS4, and are therefore well qualified to comment on the applicant’s consideration and assessment of the key policy issues raised by the proposals. GVA warn:
• That expanding Monk’s Cross reverses the Council’s strategy to promote the vitality and viability of York city centre
• It would suck £83-£95M annually out of York
o and it’s feared the effect on peripheral streets could bankrupt many shops
• It would make Monk’s Cross the dominant shopping destination
o setting a precedent for continued growth of out-of-town retail
• It will greatly damage investor confidence in our city
o GVA confirms that these consequences will be with York for the foreseeable future and are not time limited. The city would not recover! Facts
• Scale of additional A1retail applications
o Oakgate propose 320,000 sq ft of new retail for M&S, John Lewis and another
o USS propose a further 140,000 sq ft to the existing Monk’s Cross
o Total will exceed 500,000 sq ft
• Applications run counter to the conclusion and recommendations of the City of York Retail Study 2008 (CYRS)
• Applications run counter to the overall direction of the current and emerging Local Development Framework to focus retail development within the city centre and York Central
• The CYRS identifies that York’s market share declined in the period up to 2008, partly as a consequence of the continued growth of out of centre retailing and competing developments
• The proposals appear to be advanced partly on the basis of an enabling development argument to fund the development of a community stadium which has no financial plan attached
• The proposals run counter to the Council’s emerging Local Planning policies and the evidence on which they are based would essentially pre-judge and pre-determine the outcome in favour of the continued growth and expansion of Monk’s Cross.
• The applicant’s own impact assessment suggests an impact of circa 7% on the city centre - £39 million p.a.
• The GVA estimate is between 15% and 17% - £83 - £95 million p.a. Argument against
• The provision of a flagship Marks and Spencer and John Lewis, and further parking etc are likely to materially reinforce this attraction and increase this level of competition with the City Centre. This will create continued pressure from other comparison retailers to follow suit.
• Negative consequences in terms of sustainable shopping patterns, environmental effects, and their consequences for the current and potential future vitality and viability of the city centre.
• Current economic conditions suggest there is likely to be less capacity for new development and more limited retailer demand, and the demand of key variety and department stores is likely to be crucial to determining the viability of new development within the city centre.
• The applicants have discounted more central development opportunities which have been the main focus of the City Council’s strategy to date, based on what we consider to be overly short term considerations about their viability and deliverability.
• In the context of the long term future, and growth of York, we are concerned that by allowing further significant expansion at Monk’s Cross, comments about the deliverability of more central options are likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• The presence of a new flagship Marks and Spencer and a John Lewis at Monk’s Cross could have a disproportionate effect on existing anchor stores and the potential to secure new anchors in the City Centre.
• The applicant’s impact assessment is likely to have understated the impact on the City Centre. As a consequence, the proposals will increase the market share of Monk’s Cross and reduce that of the City Centre, potentially moving towards the point where the combined market share of out of centre shopping facilities in York exceed the City Centre.
• If the current proposals are permitted, even leaving aside the potential significant precedent they would create for the continued unplanned expansion of this and other out of centre destinations, we are concerned that the prospects for securing any major new comparison retail development at Castle Piccadilly, other central opportunities, or York Central would be at best delayed and potentially prejudiced.
• The application raises a range of other potentially significant planning issues. Part of the development site is previously undeveloped, and there are potentially environmental issues which warrant careful consideration. Equally the scale of additional parking and accessibility of the site to its potential catchment and effect on overall travel patterns and CO2 emissions requires careful consideration in order to judge whether the proposals could genuinely be regarded as sustainable economic development.
• Given the potentially serious implications of the proposals, we consider additional more detailed analysis of the applicant’s supporting material would be required, and the proposals should be the subject of careful independent scrutiny. However, on the information to date, we consider they have potentially profound long term implications for the City Centre’s shopping function.
• In terms of sustainability, Monk’s Cross II would be disastrous! A car-dependent shopping centre propping up a car-dependent stadium cannot be seen any other way. It means more car journeys on the already congested Northern Ring Road. This will create more pollution and more traffic misery for the people who live in the area and for football fans who still want to see York City play.
• No longer will fans be able to walk to the ground, like they can to Bootham Crescent, and fans of opposing teams will be compelled to drive from other parts of the country instead of coming by train.
• The proposals are contrary to national planning policy, draft national planning policy, and to the Council’s Local Development Framework and appear to prejudice and run counter to the emerging strategy for the future. In effect, these two proposals will create an alternative city centre offering a full range of comparison goods shopping – from small shops up to major department stores. According to the Council’s own professional advisors, GVA, the Oakgate development on its own will take between 15% to 17% of the trade away from the city centre. And in total there would be a devastating impact of around £90 million a year on city centre retailers
2. The smaller retailers will suffer to a greater extent as they rely on smaller margins and local commerce
3. Small independents will shed jobs in an attempt to cut operating costs and in peripheral streets many businesses will close down
4. Empty shops makes the city centre a less attractive visitor proposition as well as for residents
5. Fewer visitors means even less income to smaller businesses and the cycle will continue
6. The impact on the city centre will not just be economic. Empty shops mean neglected buildings and, with independent retailers usually being the first to suffer, that means the very fabric of some of York’s most attractive streets is now at risk
7. The impact on employment will almost certainly be negative – with the new jobs promised at Monk’s Cross being more than offset by huge job losses in the city centre
8. No matter what might be said by its promoters, Monk’s Cross is aimed at the car-borne shopper, its accessibility to those who travel by rail, by bike or by foot being extremely limited. Its carbon footprint will therefore be immense
9. Despite the developers’ claims, there will be no economic or regenerative gains for York city centre from the expansion of Monk’s Cross. The so-called ‘Community Stadium’ is a £10 million sweetener that will be paid for by the demise of the city centre
10. Such a development – if allowed – would fly in the face of national and local planning policies, condemn York’s city centre to decline for decades, and show that we have learnt nothing from experience elsewhere
If you care about the long-term vitality and viability of the city centre, then you should object to the proposals for Monk’s Cross II now. Write to the Council’s Planning Department (Plans Processing Unit, City of York Council, 9 St. Leonards Place
York YO1 7ET), or email the Chair of the Planning Committee at: [email protected] or simply write your views on the tear-off card, attach a stamp and put it in the post. RE. PLANNING APPLICATIONS:
11/02581/OUTM AND 11/02199/OUTM
I wish to object to the above planning applications for the following reasons:
NAME: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADDRESS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTCODE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DATE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
