I hope this won't hold up the application for long.

I had a strong suspicion that this issue would raise it's head and thought that Xscape might put in an REM objection in respect of car parking numbers and I said so here - [urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=2&t=481220&start=45[/url

It will not ultimatley prevent planning being granted and might not even delay things too much... if they anticipated this possible situation with Xscape? It would appear that the REM application has reduced the number of car parking spaces from the outline permission, can someone confirm this? If they have reduced the number of spaces from the original application they could just be trying it on and hoping to get away with providing less... less spaces means less cost! So they could now just increase the number of spaces back to the outline number (if indeed they have reduced the number) and then Xscape's objection is effectively dealt with.

One option I mentioned was shifting Castleford's 'regular' (non-Sky) fixtures to Sunday nights, say 6.30pm K.O and using the shopping outlet car park which closes at 5pm as the overspill. I think Xscape would be supportive of this as an option as they have to cross there site to get to the stadium... but of course Cas would have to come to a financial arrangement with J32 about the use of the car park.

You can't blame Xscape, the more spaces the better for them and they will keep pushing until they can be appeased or the planners tell them to get lost and grant permission anyway. It is the dead-time that is the problem for them, not people using the car park in the first place. I think that their traffic consultant is being generous by putting the dead-time down as 1hr 40mins, I think 2hrs would be the general minimum with 2hr 30min being a more realistic average. If people coming to Xscape can't get a space and the place is has capacity for more punters, you can see the issue!

Oh god he's back Mr Planning Permission himself

Oh God, Lord of Planning Permission is back

You surprise me...



That is correct.

Given the stick I get from the adolescents on here (see above) then I could not resist saying... I told you so! I am back on a winning percentage!





In that case the planners will ask them to put them back I suspect or reject the REM. As the outline was granted on the basis of more spaces then simply putting them back effectively resolves the issue and assuming that Xscape did not object on this basis first time around (?) their objection is countered.

Oh wise one, thank you for clearing the situation up. The dwellers of Castleford can sleep soundly knowing that the fountain of all planning permission knowledge is here to translate to us. Praise the Lord

Mods - Do we really need this here on RL Fans... again? They have the whole of Casforum to assassinate my character if they wish!

Can we keep this like Bonzo please... sensible?

You would think the owners of Xscape would be chuffed to have thousands of potential customers in the area every 2 weeks?.

Money talks in this day and age,hope a comprimise can be sorted quickly

Better still, why dont you take your ball home and go and sit next to Ferguson and say nowt?

How about we all cut out the petty squabbling and keep the thread on topic? Failing that I'll just use the lock button on this and any newly created threads on the subject if people can't be civilised about it.

If you read the letter mate they are but the point (as I said on the VT thread linked above) is about dead-time and people not being able to park and use Xscape when the place is half empty for 2 hours + while people go over the bridge. Their car park runs at near capacity for the majority of the weekend already so they don't actual gain anything unless these extra visitors to the game can park somewhere and there is real potential that in actual fact they take more money on nights when a match is NOT on an lose money when there is because people take up space while being off-site for 2 hours blocking other people getting in. You hit the nail on the head - they are only potential customers but if you can't accommodate them, they remain just that - potential!

The planning issue is that they have reduced the number of spaces from the outline approval to current reserved matters. If they hadn't done that Xscape might still object but then it would be a little late to do so! As it is, theirs is a very valid objection that now needs to be dealt with or take the risk on the planners siding with the club/Waystone.

Having read the letter I can't disagree with any of the points made - Xscape car park does get very busy on the weekends and so its not as if supporters parking their cars there are doing so in a space that would otherwise remain empty.

I'm just disappointed Xscape have only raised their objections now. Then again, if Cas have altered the planned number of parking spaces included with the stadium from that detailed in the outline planning application they (Cas) have only got themselves to blame!

I wonder if we could offer some sort of compromise by increasing our number of parking spaces and offering them to Xscape/Junction 32 for use in their busy periods ie xmas, january sales etc etc

Castigers/Ramsdens reduce the number of spaces by 325 in this application.

Xscape have 400 overflow spaces that none of their customers use.

Xscape may have to pay for a lease and upkeep of these spaces as they do not own the land.

Castigers take over the lease on a ready made car park for 400 spaces.

Castigers save on the cost of constructing 400 spaces

Castigers and Xscape both Happy Bunnies.

Just a thought but I may be wrong

You missed getting Xscape out of a S106 and possible planning condition... but otherwise good and very possible theory!

As I said on the other thread, what will be, will be.

Does that mean bigalf is correct then?

No, it means I'm getting sick of this whole topic and just want the frigging thing to be built now.

So why comment?

Ditto

Because I wanted to?

Must confess i didn't have time to read the letter MATE, time was at a premium before i went to work.

I don't mind being corrected if wrong,it is a bit harder to take when it comes from shameless self-opportunist masquerading as
a good samaritan...imo (best add that,before you go moaning to Bonzo again)

Can't argue with that!

Oh dear what a shame, yet another one or am I misjudging? Having read back the opening line I can understand why you thought I was having a go at you for reading or not reading the letter, I wasn't and as such I apologise if that is how it came across, I was just trying to converse with you and discuss the topic.

As for the rest, well you are entitled to your opinion and of course you, like a small minority of others you are totally wrong! It is quite hard to take when it comes from a poster who clearly only beleives what he reads on another forum but I am happy, as always, to discuss the topic yet again? Or I might just link you to the other several post about this topic and then see if you would like to apologise then?

The links might be easier, I think Bonzo and tb are getting just as sick of the topic of 'me' as I am!!! Interestingly, I get accused of being egotistical but I never bring up the subject of 'me' and 'my reasons' everyone else does! How does that work?



PS. I must confess I did indulge in slightly egotistical behaviour on the VT thread about this... but as bigalf say, you must occasionally blow your own trumpet (especially when you are correct!).