I have got the full list of non-statutory consultation replies from the planning office today. Makes for some very interesting reading! Not least of which is a bloke OBJECTING called Phil Townsend... however, as there is a Phil Townsend from an address I know who is in SUPPORT of the application I used my detective powers to work out that they were not the same person!





These stats are rough and have been done by me quickly on a calculator, so they could be a slight margin of error.

Total number of replies was 1387
Total number of those listed as objecting was 1114

Of those objections, a staggering 700 were from outside Wakefield MDC!!!! That is 63% of all objections coming from outside the district.

The overwhelming majority of the objections from outside the district came from Methley/Mickletown.... surprise, surprise!!! It would appear that someone has a Kent connection as 10 objections came from there, within a total of 30 that came from outside of Leeds or Wakefield districts. There were odd objections from Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Barnsley etc but also just the one from Wigan!

Now, what is also interesting is the amount that came from the same postal address, I estimate that over 50% of all objections had one or more (I think 7 was the biggest number from one address I spotted) letter from the same address. Also, it would appear that many of the people that objected early decided to write again in September/October once they knew the committee meeting date. I estimate that about 20% of the objections are repeated from the same address later in the year. June Fender's (Methley Residents Association Chairman) name appears 3 times on three different letters!

The vast majority of the 250 ish support letters come from one person at one address only.

I would therefore estimate that if you tried to do a like for like analysis there would not be a great deal of difference in actual objections (taking one from each address instead of the multiple letters) against the support letters of say around 250 each side.

This bit is a total guesstimate but I suspect if you went through and actually looked at the number of actual unique objection letters (as in the many number of 'standard' objection letters that were passed around via e-mail for people just to add there name and address and send) I think they would be less than 100. The vast majority of the support letters are unique and are not copied from a standard.

It was also very interesting to note that objection from Bottom Boat was quite high but hardly anyone objected from Moorhouse and not that many at all from anywhere else in Stanley, with the exception of Newmarket Lane itself of course.

I understand that the councillors at the meeting all had a copy of this list as well and it does not take long to work out that the majority of the objections have clearly been 'prompted, pushed & coerced' out of people by e-mails, newsletters and the majority of them come from several 'standard' letter types! When you are getting 4 letters from one address in Kent, you suspect that maybe these objectors have not actually looked the plans at all and have just sent an e-mail/letter because a close relative has asked them to!

Finally, I bet if you actually compared the electoral register to the number of people who have written from each address I suspect you would find more than a handful of discrepancies... I bet a few family pets have written in as well... if you know what I mean!

dirty tactic's indeed, the council should check out the properties in that area to see if any boundaries have been changed

Never did trust those Invicta lot

some one needs to RELAX,

I noticed John Sheridan left it late to add his and his family's objections. Perhaps didn't want to reveal himself too soon.

Was the objector's name from Huddersfield C. James by any chance?

That makes very interesting reading I_A.
I am very pleased that the council were aware of what we all knew ... and I hope the Regional Office knows as well!

I can explain why a lot from Bottomboat protested - the 'daft old bat' (I do know this person and my description is 100% correct

) who predicted storms, earthquakes, deadly chrystals, pneumomia, hundreds killed by lorries etc.. etc.. went round the whole of Bottomboat Road getting people to sign petitions and scaremongering.

She sent 3 'beautifully hand written

' letters herself!

To be fair to John, while he did leave it late he clearly got his kids to (sort of) write their own letters and they were different. But I think you might be right about wanting to keep a low profile.

I also noticed (as the list is in order) who was the very first person to submit a comment never mind one in support!

There were loads from Fulham as well!!!



There wasn't really, but there were two from the greater London area!

There were four from Huddersfield but none from C. James.

Her letters are the highlight, without a doubt!

The list I have is in order of receipt and it jumps out at you, you will see a glut of letters from the same street all together with separate letters from each of the members of the house, it is not hard to see the many patterns emerging! As someone in one street/area gets hold of a 'standard' letter they contact their near neighbours and get them to send the same letter etc... it is like a wave!

Omg Planning has been given mindful to approve status and your doing an indepth breatkdown of the letters of complaint.

At the end of the day people are entitled to object, if they wish wether sombody puts the idea in their head or not. It was the same with the petition from swag, did people not actively seek signatures for that. Also letters to the planning department was the offical way to register your view, unlike the swag petition which gave a very brief outline of the overall development.
I have different opinions to you, but what has irked me all along is the fact that you seem to think that other people are not entitled to theirs. It is obvious that people living close to the development will want to have their view known and that it will more than likley be based on localised issues. Im sure the main factor that compelled trin fans to support the project were rugby related.

The fact of the matter is though the Council wanted this project all along, and more than likley initiated it as you know developments like this do not happen by chance (which made it all the more funny listening to people on here slating the council), they happen because councils want them to happen. The big test now will be weather the government agree with the council.

You're wasted on the Rhinos, IA. Now that they're in decline, maybe you oughtto consider a change of allegiance. Let's face it, we can tell now where your heart really lies, and you won't be allowed back into Headingley now that you've have helped to restore us as Yorkshires next rugby powerhouse.

While your arguament, to a certain extent is true, indeed blindingly obvious in parts, the behaviour of the opposition has in the end lessened there arguament, and the number of actual objectors in total.
In these situations the truth is usually outed, liars and fools proven to be so.
Our arguament has always been one of openness, and problems along the way ironed out. This cannot be said of the opposition, of which I consider you to be one of, if I am incorrect I appologise, but you really only come on here on this matter.
As for going to government, I am actually less worried about this now than I would have been say 2 years ago.
Quangos quashed, budgets slashed, moor power to local governments (who voted unanimously in favour of Newmarket and made the objectors look like foneys) we may well be a very good example of uncle David's " big society" albeit on a large scale.
I'm afraid your time may well be coming to an end on this debate, as they say on xfactor you need 3 yes' to go through, we've got 1, and in a months time we will I hope have the other two, I will wait to see what you come back on this forum to moan about then or wether you will just dissapear, like some of the supposed objectors have done under a bit of scrutany??

You know Rugbyball that's a very good question. House point for you!!!



So let's break it down; =#FF4000What is the Newmarket development?
A mixed use industrial complex with additional sporting, education and leisure facilities. As well as a Hotel and drive-thru resturant.- to date.
Does that not sound like the a prime example of the private sector "stepping up to the plate"?

=#FF0000So what will the Newmarket development bring economically?
All of the above bring =#FF4000NEW jobs to the area, ergo increased taxes raised on the individual and businesses. Increased business rates which feedback into the coffers of local government- leading to less of dependency on central government for funding.
This development will go a good way to bringing the region up to regional targets for employment and economic activity in key sectors- warehousing and distribution in this case. And while opposition claimed this increase could and should be phased and spread around the district; do you think if we have a site where the impact can be minimal to the region as a whole we should use that site and build in total asap to realise the potential benefits now- at a time we need them so badly!

=#FF0000Finally what else will the Newmarket development bring?
Well even you can answer this one.
However even the non-economic benefits can be seen as having a short term economic benefit- the stadium alone will inject 13M of business into the area.

=#FF4000My answer.....
At the moment a development such as Newmarket is George Osborne's wet dream! Pickles will toe the party line & this application will be back with the WMDC by a week on Friday.

In essence I think we're being run by economists at the moment and this development stands completely aligned with current economic recovery plans IMO.
The economic downturn may be a grim reaper of a lot of developments over the past 3 years, however IMO it works completely in our favour at the minute!

If AI's our last signing of the year I'd be happy with that!!!
Just out of interest AI; can you kick a 40-20?

Oh right ,I see now, you've been trolling these boards, for the past 8 months because of some sense of injustice against people with a negative opinion on Newmarket.

I can understand the small number of people who may be affected by the development objecting to it. Unfortunatley for them the positives of the development for the whole area are ones which cannot be denied. Private sector investment creating jobs and top class sporting facilities for the community that the council don't have to pay for. If this doesn't get passed by the Government it's hard to see what they would be willing to pass.

....Well said !!!!!!

[/u

I think you have missed a comma between the words 'weather' and 'the'

. However, I do agree that the big test will be weather, because a hard winter may slow down the project

. I hope you are so right with the second part of that sentence.

To be fair, I am just looking at the full list of names and addresses of people who sent in consultation replies. I phoned up Wakefield Planning, spoke to Becky and she printed off the full list and left it on reception for me to pick up when I was passing (which I did picking up my little boy from his Grandma's). I spent 30 minutes or so looking at the list and counting the number of objections from Leeds, Wakefield etc. I would hardly call it an 'in-depth breakdown'. The reason I wanted the information are numerous, it is public information and so I wanted to look at the list, I wanted to confirm my own feelings and suspicions that the majority of the objection came from outside of Wakefield and also have the relevant information ready if and when the people driving the wider objection make their next move to try and influence the regional and government office to put this scheme to a costly and unnecessary PI.



Of course they are and I have never not respected their right to do so, in fact I fully support their right to do so, as I believe in the system, with all it's flaws! However, I have equally exercised my right to support the scheme and oppose their views, I have done so openly and in an honest way... I have not hidden behind any invented group names, disguised my real identity on official appearing websites or even potentially broken the law by possibly libelling anyone or allegedly deliberately assumed a false identity!

You still don't get it do you, you don't understand that was is really driving me stems from that first WCCG flyer I got sent on e-mail and I then posted on here. That flyer is what irked me, the WAR flyer that followed, the websites, the half-truths and in some cases lies told by a small group of people who have abused the trust (IMO) of hundreds of decent people and used them to further their true selfish purpose... to stop this development happening because it is next to them. With the exception of the green-belt issue which was valid (albeit I think Wakefield have made the correct decision in this regard), the overwhelming majority of their objections are without any foundation. The thing is they knew that from day one, but instead of deciding to stand and fight fare, so to speak, they decided to fight dirty (IMO) and while being brilliant in their execution of that plan, it is this that has driven my more than anything. They have convinced genuine organisations like Methley Residents Association, an MP from the neighbouring constituency, local councillors from the neighbouring ward and many, many people that they are being driven by conservation, green issues, waste of tax payer money and environmental concerns... but never once revealed their true purpose and identity. People by their nature are trusting, so when someone from a group called Wakefield & Leeds Community Conservation Group and Wakefield Angry Residents send you a flyer or an e-mail many people give them their trust and believe them.



And there it is... the killer line that if you look back at my posts I predicted would come out, lets blame the biased and corrupt council, we never stood a chance! But do you know what, of course they did and of course they want them to happen because that is what we elect them to do but you seem to missing something! You are claiming to be the victims of some sort of injustice because 'loads' of you complained and objected and this is all the proof you need but you are quite happy to ignore the possibility that my opinion, while repugnant and different to yours, was more reasoned, relevant and objective than yours... just a thought?

well said !!!!!

Not everyone in Mickletown objected!. The thought of Newmarket getting the go ahead was a sweetener to moving here. Loved it when all the NIMBYs came a calling telling me of all the problems with the development, soon sent them packing!.

Mate, you are plainly rediculous along with plenty of your buddies on here, i am NOT associated with any rugby league club but to look at the rediculous comments on here especially the forensic way you are searching through the objections is frankly beyond belief. This whole development is rediculous and if you read what Leeds Council say about it you will be able to see a balanced and common sense point of view... WE DONT NEED THIS MASSIVE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON GREEN BELT LAND, it is not necessary for jobs in this area or anything else, even Wakefield trinity supporters will only fill one stand with the amount of supporters they have (and i mean one of the stands behind the posts not down the sides) You lot are so blinkered about this rediculous project which has only been given a "mindful to approve" status and this was only because NOT one Wakefield council member wants any blood on their hands but they know that Leeds Council or the SOS will kick the whole pipe dream into touch. You are all as bad as each other especially TRB who has led you all down the garden path i'm afraid. Lets hope that Leeds Council sort this out as quick as possible and then we can all get back to enjoying the views!!