Businessman calls for new plans for redevelopment site

From the archive, first published Tuesday 31st Jul 2007.

A DEVELOPER is proposing a radical alternative to York's stalled "Shoppergate" scheme - a new professional and business quarter on the Castle-Piccadilly site.

Martin Burgess, managing director of Northminster Properties, claims the scheme would meet demand for new city centre offices from professionals such as law and accountancy firms.

He called on City of York Council to talk to him as well as property giant Land Securities, whose retail redevelopment scheme Coppergate Riverside was thrown out by the Government almost four years ago.

The company revealed in The Press on Saturday that it was still considering whether to come up with fresh proposals for the site, 16 months after City of York Council drew up a new planning blueprint to guide development.

Mr Burgess claimed City of York Council should abandon a close relationship with Land Securities, arguing: "They have been holding hands for 15 years but have never made it to the altar."

He revealed he now owns two properties in Piccadilly, the dining furniture shop near the bridge over the River Foss and the NCP car park, which he recently acquired.

He said there was now "significant demand" for professional office space, revealing he had been approached by one firm of solicitors "desperate" to move into larger city centre offices as part of an expansion, and wondering if there was any possibility of new offices on the Castle Piccadilly site.

He had since spoken to another law firm also wanting larger premises, and was aware of other businesses, such as accountancy firms, wanting new offices. "They are large, well-established firms of solicitors that have major office requirements that cannot be satisfied," he said.

He said there would still be room for extra retail premises, and also restaurants and a hotel to meet tourism needs, but claimed there was a need to get away from Land Securities' over-riding focus on retail.

He stressed that whatever was built on the site, there would need to be a significant open space in the vicinity of Clifford's Tower, perhaps with a stylish piazza being created to front on to the site.

Mr Burgess submitted proposals in 2003 to turn the upper floor of the dining furniture building into 14 flats, and the ground floor into a restaurant with parking, but the application was withdrawn after planning officers recommended it be thrown out because it waas considered piecemeal when a fully comprehensive scheme for the whole area was needed.

His fresh proposals have today won support from Adam Sinclair, who chairs York Business Pride and was a fierce critic of the original Coppergate Riverside scheme. He said: "There's a view that the site should be developed as a quarter for professional and financial services with some retail but not necessarily a huge new shopping centre. There is a lot of pent-up demand."

He agreed that the council should talk to all prospective developers, and not just one.

But council leader Steve Galloway said today the council would wish to see a comprehensive development proposal for the Piccadilly area - and Land Securities were a "dominant property owner" there.

"It is for them to make a statement when they consider it appropriate," he said. "My advice to Mr Burgess is that his first step should be to speak with Land Securities.

"The council will seek to work constructively with property developers on all sites in the city.

"In the case of the Piccadilly area, there has already been a lot of consultation about the future of the site, with recent delays attributable to the adverse decision at a public enquiry some four years ago."

He said any new proposal would have to reflect the draft planning brief and would be expected to address the requirements of the whole site.

A Land Securities spokesman declined to comment on Mr Burgess's calls, and also declined to say which properties it owned on the Castle-Piccadilly site.

l A recent You The Jury survey asked Press readers: "Would any retail development be acceptable at the site of Coppergate II? Some two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents said "no", with 33 per cent saying "yes".