Back to the future

Depending on which side of the fence you stood, the £60 million scheme was either going to revitalise the city's heart and provide much-needed investment - not least in the form of new shops - or it was going to be a desecration of an area of unique historical importance and beauty.

It was inevitable therefore that the initial reactions to the Government's rejection of the scheme should vary sharply between euphoria on the part of those opposed to the scheme and disappointment on the part of its supporters.

Once the dust has settled, though, it will become increasingly apparent that the decision of Housing and Planning Minister Keith Hill has thrown up more questions than it resolved.

On the face of it, opponents of the scheme are quite right to be celebrating. John Bingham, the planning inspector on whose advice Mr Hill acted in rejecting the scheme, leaves little doubt of where he stands, describing the design as "totally unacceptable" and saying it would "severely detract" from the York conservation area.

Mr Hill, while accepting his planning inspector's advice, did not go quite as far, however - and specifically left the door open for some kind of future development on the castle side of the River Foss. "Built development on land to the west of the River Foss is not only acceptable, but desirable in principle," he said.

The Minister's ruling, in other words, is not quite the definitive decision it might seem at first. Much remains to be fought for, on both sides.

And there, in a sense, is the real danger. It is more than ten years since the public in York were first consulted on three possible schemes for the development of the area. Since then there has been a decade of delay, compromise and bickering, which culminated in the nine-week public inquiry last year - an inquiry that cost the taxpayer an estimated £220,000 in legal costs and the cost of organising the hearing.

During that time, the area of Piccadilly bordering the Foss has continued to be an eyesore, and the ugly car park next to Clifford's Tower a blight on what should be the architectural, cultural and historic centre of York.

Almost everyone agrees that the redevelopment of the Piccadilly bank of the Foss is long overdue. The real tragedy would be if the Government's decision on Coppergate, coupled with continued debate over what should be done on the castle side of the river, led to yet further delays.

There was much talk today about the importance of everyone - those opposed to the scheme and those in favour - working together to find a solution that is satisfactory to all.

Philip Crowe, of York Tomorrow, which was one of the main opponents of the scheme, said it was time for the city council to "take a deep breath, and perhaps think about how they can take this matter forward in co-operation with people like ourselves".

Alison Sinclair, chairman of the York Conservation Area Advisory Panel, who was also strongly opposed, added: "I hope we can all put the past behind us and work together."

Whether that happens remains to be seen - because it is clear that deep divides still remain.

York Tomorrow still hopes that the castle side of the Foss can be turned into some kind of open space for use by members of the public.

But there seems little likelihood of City of York Council - which supported developer Land Securities in last year's planning inquiry - ever agreeing to that.

Council leader Coun Steve Galloway said those pressing for an open space on the site of the existing car park had been given a number of opportunities to demonstrate how they would fund such a scheme. The car park was the best-used in the city, he said, and produced an income equivalent to three per cent of the council tax.

Nevertheless, he agreed that continued delay over what should be done with the riverside area was in nobody's best interests.

There was a need for more quality shopping in York, he said - and the economic regeneration of the Piccadilly area remained very much on the agenda.

The council would be taking a fresh look at the whole situation in the light of the Minister's decision, he said. "But hopefully all of the work that has been done, for example on the Piccadilly area, won't be lost and we will be able to move ahead with the regeneration of that part of the city as quickly as possible."

That, of course, will depend on finding a developer willing to come up with a proposal. Land Securities was licking its wounds yesterday, saying it needed time to review the reasons given for refusal before commenting any further.

But there are two options for it or any other developer that decides to take up the challenge: either to come up with plans to redevelop the Piccadilly side of the river alone; or - in light of the opening so conspicuously left by Mr Hill - to come up with fresh plans for the whole of the riverside area on both banks of the Foss.

Whether a developer would find simply regenerating the Piccadilly side of the river an economically viable prospect must remain open to doubt. But any attempt to submit a fresh application to build on the castle side of the river looks certain to run into renewed opposition.

Mr Crowe said he hoped that the Minister's rejection of the scheme would deter any fresh applications to build near Clifford's Tower. If there were to be such an application, however, it should not be decided locally by the city council, he said. "It would have to go back to the secretary of State, and we're going to have another inquiry," he warned.

Coun Mark Hill, leader of York Greens, meanwhile, is urging the city council to accept the spirit of the Minister's ruling, and not simply rush into supporting a modified Land Securities proposal. He wants to see a "proper consultation" with the people of York on the future of the area - including whether they would like it to be used as a public open space, he says.

No quick fixes, in other words. It looks as though it could be some time yet before the row over what to do with the Eye of York is finally resolved.

Updated: 11:56 Thursday, September 11, 2003