The proposals to extend York's Coppergate Centre with riverside shops and restaurants have sparked arguably the biggest planning debate in the city for 20 years. To gauge shoppers' views, the Evening Press conducted its own survey of 685 people in the city centre area. Mike Laycock reports on the results.
We first asked shoppers whether they lived in York, to compare the views of those outside the city with those who live here. In fact, the views of residents and non-residents turned out to be broadly similar.
We asked people how often they shopped at the existing Coppergate Centre and, perhaps surprisingly, almost 15 per cent of York residents said they did not shop there at all. However, 35 per cent said they visited the shopping centre at least once a week, with females tending to shop there more frequently than males.
Then we sought to discover how many people had heard about Land Securities' £60 million scheme to redevelop the land between Clifford's Tower and Piccadilly. York residents were reasonably well-informed, with almost seven in ten respondents saying they had heard of it. Some 25 per cent of non-York residents had heard about the proposal.
Then we got down to the nitty-gritty, asking whether people thought the development should go ahead. And a clear majority of York residents - almost 60 per cent - felt it should. But almost one in four York residents felt it should not, with the remainder unsure or not bothered. There was a similar split among non-residents.
When asked whether the scheme would be a good thing for York, 63 per cent of York residents said "yes," compared to just under 19 per cent saying "no". Non-residents were more divided, with just 46 per cent saying "yes" and 40 per cent saying it would not be good for York.
People were next asked whether they felt the proposals would have particularly positive or negative implications. And there was a strongly positive response from both residents and non-residents.
More than 47 per cent of York residents felt that it would increase the number of jobs, almost 40 per cent thought it would mean a greater choice of shops, while 35 per cent thought it would keep businesses in York.
However, almost two in ten respondents felt that the development would be an eyesore near to historic Clifford's Tower, and a similar percentage thought it would generate noise and pollution (possibly in the building process). Seventeen per cent felt concerns about wildlife issues were at stake.
When we asked whether people felt there would be a negative or positive impact on existing York shops, almost 44 per cent of York residents said it would be positive, and almost 25 per cent thought it would be negative, with the remainder not knowing or not caring.
We then asked what people felt could be built instead of the Coppergate extension. Sixty-one per cent of York residents had no other suggestions. However, of those respondents who did reply, suggestions included:
a supermarket (21 suggested this), a pub/nightclub (43), a park (24), a sports complex (22), while 12 suggested it could be a car park. Nine suggested an ice rink, four a football field, five a skate park and nine went for housing.
Conclusions
It would appear from the survey analysis that three-fifths of York residents are in general favour of the scheme. The remaining 40 per cent can be broken down into those that do not care/don't know (15 per cent) and those who are against the idea (25 per cent). In essence, the building of the Coppergate Phase II development is going to grate on one quarter of York's population. Should this proposal go ahead? Based on these particular research findings, it seems it should.
A field research team of five staff questioned shoppers in the Coppergate, Parliament Street, High Ousegate and Coney Street areas of York about the proposed Coppergate Phase II development. Residents' views are presented in the accompanying graphics.
PICTURE: HIGH STAKES: The view from the air of the River Foss and Clifford's Tower area which is the subject of the Coppergate II scheme, with the existing Coppergate Centre, bottom right
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article