Sorry I_A but You are wrong.


I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for [uinformation only [/uto show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine).

The Cas Tigers Ground [uhas[/u been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.

Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.

I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)

www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf

Do you?

Sorry I_A but You are wrong.


I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for [uinformation only [/uto show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine).

The Cas Tigers Ground [uhas[/u been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.

Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.

I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)

www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf

Do you?

Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right

) it is very confusing.

Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?

I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment.

If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation?



There are some key bits in red that I think are important!

I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case.

Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple!

I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all.

I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9."

As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it!

Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right

) it is very confusing.

Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?

I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment.

If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation?



There are some key bits in red that I think are important!

I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case.

Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple!

I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all.

I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9."

As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it!

Page 33

www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf

Page 33

www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf

Thanks for the link, saved me searching for it.

But that tells me what I told you, that Ben Bailey (and Cas) didn't get their ultimate wish, as of as late as October 2010, (which they must be quite pleased about now to be honest) that this site be recognised as a separate housing site within N9. They rejected this option in favour of the regulatory framework given by an SPA for the whole Riverside area instead... which is what I said!

However, they have to identify within an SPA the sites that hey consider to be most suitable for housing supply and that is done in the housing supply table in the sites document. WR has been allocated for housing and that is what the LDF says!

Now, you are correct, this is not quite as rigid as if it had been allocated as a full separate housing site but the whole of N9 has to be able to provide, within the plan, the total number of houses assigned to it. So if you kick out the houses allocated (can't remember the total number for WR now... was it 104?) you have to plan for them on another site in N9 to meet the total 2.5k target. So if they don't go here, they have to go somewhere else and 2 other large sites in N9 are also arguing is should not be them.

Come on, to say that this site is not currently envisaged to be for housing is disingenuous. The very fact we are able to both debate this and show different bit of evidences in the documents and the fact the Cas and other site providers in N9 are also objecting to the wording of the LDf tells the story here... and why this unfortunately, and I do mean that, will not be resolved for many, many months if not years!

Time for a joint fans keep Cas and Wakey in SL campaign anyone?

Thanks for the link, saved me searching for it.

But that tells me what I told you, that Ben Bailey (and Cas) didn't get their ultimate wish, as of as late as October 2010, (which they must be quite pleased about now to be honest) that this site be recognised as a separate housing site within N9. They rejected this option in favour of the regulatory framework given by an SPA for the whole Riverside area instead... which is what I said!

However, they have to identify within an SPA the sites that hey consider to be most suitable for housing supply and that is done in the housing supply table in the sites document. WR has been allocated for housing and that is what the LDF says!

Now, you are correct, this is not quite as rigid as if it had been allocated as a full separate housing site but the whole of N9 has to be able to provide, within the plan, the total number of houses assigned to it. So if you kick out the houses allocated (can't remember the total number for WR now... was it 104?) you have to plan for them on another site in N9 to meet the total 2.5k target. So if they don't go here, they have to go somewhere else and 2 other large sites in N9 are also arguing is should not be them.

Come on, to say that this site is not currently envisaged to be for housing is disingenuous. The very fact we are able to both debate this and show different bit of evidences in the documents and the fact the Cas and other site providers in N9 are also objecting to the wording of the LDf tells the story here... and why this unfortunately, and I do mean that, will not be resolved for many, many months if not years!

Time for a joint fans keep Cas and Wakey in SL campaign anyone?