Sponsored by
Vandals
still blight
stadium
URGENT decisions need to be taken over the future of the former McCain Stadium, which is still a target of vandals, according to a leading Scarborough councillor.
The issue was raised during a statement by Cllr Tom Fox, the leader of Scarborough Council, at Monday’s meeting of the full council.
In his statement he highlighted the problems experienced at the now derelict Seamer Road football ground – which included unwelcome visits from trespassers and bottle collectors.
He said: “We could clear the site of bottles. Two relatively new stands and floodlights could be re-used.”
In October the Evening News revealed that the council had put out a tender to level the former McCain Stadium. The main stand, clubhouse and shed stand would be the first to go with the possibility of other stands being moved to a new sports village or demolished at a later date.
Cllr Fox confirmed that there was also an option for either full or partial demolition of the stadium.
He said that a shortlist had been produced with six private companies interested in developing the sports village – which could be built in Weaponness Coach Park at a cost of up to £22 million.
The shortlist would then be whittled down to three bidders once outline proposals had been received from the six shortlisted companies.
It is hoped that the sports village – which could include a swimming pool, a sports hall, outdoor pitches as well as community, health and education facilities – will be open within five years.
Deputy mayor Cllr John Blackburn said he had always had an interest in the McCain Stadium and somebody from the council should be involved in any future decisions.
He added: “I don’t think our decision should be taken on what Scarborough Athletic say.”
Since Scarborough FC folded in 2007 the stadium has fallen into a state of disrepair and has been subjected to regular bouts of vandalism and arson attacks.
The council bought the stadium in 2008 for £1.335 million but safety concerns meant the local authority had no other option than to bring an end to well over a century of history – football was first played at the site in 1898. Engineers found it would cost a further £1 million to return the ground to an acceptable standard.
Planning policy requires the provision of a replacement stadium.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Scarborough
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 18 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 14 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Soggy Moggy
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 07:12 PMI've already stated this fact on a earlier post: The replacement football stadium to be built at the Sports Village is going to be a Grade C ground with a required capacity of only 1,950 spectators and room for 1,000 more to be added at a later date. This though, will not even get the club who takes it into the Blue Square North, which requires a grade B ground, of 3,000 capacity and enough room for a further 1,000 developement. The conf' Nat' has an even larger grade A ground requirement. Interestingly, the once McCain Stadium, formerly the Athletic ground was actually a grade A ground! The provision therefore for a replacement ground being provided by the SCC, we can assume, does not include a like-for-like clause and we can, therefore, be fobbed off with a replacement by SCC that is a massive 75% smaller?! Further, who is goping to fork out the extra cash for the needed further development of the SCC's grade C ground upto a Grade B then A a Grade A?
lemon tops
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 11:19 PMCock and bull! The sale of the football ground has nothing to do with the "sports village" its about generating revenue in order for these institutionalised wasters to balance their books. What sort of a sports complex can we expect when there are only two parcels of land left to barter with?
accountdetails
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 08:47 PM#10 I wonder if it has anything to do with SAFC saying they want to work alongside the Council on this project to build a home base for their team to progress through the leagues. Well if the have a deficit of over £9,000 for the year, of which £2,700 was written off as bad debt following a £7,000 surplus at the end of the previous year to May 31 2009 whilst sharing a ground then for once A councillor has called it right.
accountdetails
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 08:34 PMStill think SBC are honest and this will be built without cost to us? No wonder they want to block our right to information......... Taken from a report presented to SBC this month R.E Middle deepdale...... “North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) had originally agreed to provide £3million for the bridge but they had reviewed their contribution to the scheme and reduced it from £3 million to £2 million in September 2010. The value of the bridge to the highways network was £3million. NYCC were also providing the funding as a loan rather than a grant.”.......Never seen that published before..............but the best bit it.........”He understood that Cabinet may wish to remove the word “loan” from the recommendation and make further representations to the County Council prior to the meeting of Council. Cllr Dixon supported the removal of the words loan as he was unhappy with the inclusion of the word loan.”
That bloke in the pub
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 07:40 PM“I don’t think our decision should be taken on what Scarborough Athletic say.” And what may I ask is the significance of that apparently random statement?
hometownboy
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 06:47 PMCome on SBC just spend the million on the stadium and save us all twenty one million . twenty one million could be better spent elsewhere in the town
accountdetails
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 04:00 PM"fool hardy"..Mmmmmmmmm I do have to say, that has to be a rare compliment for SBC, after all the going ones, subterfuge and secrecy that have been revealed on this comment section over the last couple of years, fool hardy is too mild a term for what many of us think.
snowdrift
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 03:15 PMWith current financial difficulties facing the council, are they really going to part with "parcels" of land in exchange for the building of this sports village. Fact when the upturn eventually returns those "parcels" of land with planning approval will be worth far far more than the sports village build. Could this be SBC's Gordon Brown Gold Moment. The council should delay the sports village, wait for the upturn sell the various "parcels" of land for a good price, then build the sports village and invest the extra millions in the services that will have to be reduced due to the cutbacks. Rushing into this project under the current financial situation is fool hardy at best.
baznpat
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 03:03 PMDon,t be to surprised if TESCO get it for another supermarket!!
badger464
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 01:26 PMtruth (trooth), noun pl. truths (troothz, trooths), 1.the quality or state of being true; specif., a.Obsolete loyalty; trustworthiness b.sincerity; genuineness; honesty c.the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact d.reality; actual existence e.agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy 2.that which is true; statement, etc. that accords with fact or reality 3.an established or verified fact, principle, etc. SBC hope this helps!
Mr Helderside
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 01:15 PMNothing has really changed apart from the accuracy of the SEN reporting. Fact: 1. Timescales remain the same. 2. The Council has no money to put into this apart from land, this land will be offered in return that a developer builds firstly a community stadiumvillage (maybe staged). So weather its 14mio or 22mio its the developer who has to build it at their cost in return for said land. 3. Tender process has shortlisted to 6. Hopefully this will succeed in brining a developer on board, if not it won't happen
accountdetails
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 12:51 PMPublished on Thu Oct 14 10:03:04 BST 2010 SEN “It is expected that the whole process, through to completion of construction, should take about three years with football returning to Scarborough in time for the 2014 to 2015 season. In return for the construction of the facilities, the council could offer either the freehold or leasehold of up to four of its sites at Filey Road, Seamer Road, part of Weaponness and Ryndle Crescent to a developer for development of whatever suitable uses they can obtain through the formal planning process.”…………..We were right the goal posts have moved……..”It is hoped that the sports village – which could include a swimming pool, a sports hall, outdoor pitches as well as community, health and education facilities – will be open within five years.”……At a Cost of £22 million…..No way others argued on here that I had made up the figure I stated last year and mine was nearer £14 million
pandaman121
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 11:52 AMRoll on May
pandaman121
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM" it would cost a further £1 million to return the ground to an acceptable standard." So instead, they will spend 22 mill on a new sports park ( lucky if built in next 10 years ) Millions on the Spa, for all the back slapping partys and awards, and nothing on the McCains stadium. This should have been put to a public vote. 100 years of football wasted, by a council that thinks the Spa will be the savour of this town, well, think again
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.