I don't see how the access issue is a red herring? The piece of land has got housing on 3 sides and a railway embankment on the fourth. The widest access point is opposite the old Balne Lane library down a muck path between 2 houses and probably isn't wide enough to allow a road to be built through it for access for things like the emergency services!

Let's stick to getting those objections in.

What's with the 'Rodders' bit, because someone disagrees with your sainted opinion it automatically makes them part of what you consider the enemy camp - sad.

Where did I say there would be no parking? There is clearly enough room for a stadium and car parking for staff, players, corporate and disabled plus few more IMO. See attached image which is to scale using BV as a footprint.

Perhaps you should do a little research before playing at being a town planner whilst dismissing the views of others.

As I said in my previous post, it's all smoke and mirrors, it will never happen at Balne Lane and Box must be laughing his head off at those who have actually fallen for this.
I'm not having a go at those of you who want to believe this as being a step forward (God knows we need one), but please open your eyes to the continued deceit that is being pedalled by those who seek to frustrate us at every opportunity !!

...sorry Mr Box, but that is just laughable...is that a 30 metre long pitch or a Subbuteo table you've superimposed on there ????

I used to live on Aspen Close (at the top of the image) so am familiar with the site and there is no way that is to scale, and even if it was a viable proposition, that photo clearly proves that there is no viable access to the site other than on foot !!!

Yes but that wouldn't be how it would end up if it actually went ahead would it - seriously would it? As I've clearly stated it would require the purchasing and demolition of some adjacent properties probably through compulsory purchase but it is possible with drive and ambition.

And this is the point I keep trying to make, it's the latter that's the real problem all the rest can be overcome if the will is there but IMO it isn't hence it won't happen.

However just because we don't think it will happen doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand because lets be clear we are running out of time and options and if we start turning our noses up at everything that we don't see as perfect we will also run out of sympathy, which would suit Box just fine.

We need to remain open minded. That said you are right getting the objections in has to be the number one priority for now.

I just thought the same as soon as I looked at it, but I have just done exactly what he has done on google maps and used to the same scale it comes out more or less the same as his... Maybe I was underestimating the size of the plot?

You need to grow up especially with the Box bit you sound pathetic.

OK Mr expert go on Google and do it yourself - just cut and paste one on top of the other from the same scale sat image assuming your bright enough to use Photoshop. See what you get and then come back and tell me GPS is all one big lie

Correct but some people mouth off before checking it out, must be an Aspen close thing.

I love the way some people assume they are experts whilst those who do it for a living aren't and wouldn't have checked it out for themselves - yes Box is everything people say he is but even he isn't that daft.

Land can be very decieving and always looks smaller than it actually is.

Hang on a minute MR Town planner.
You've managed to SQUEEZE in the bare bones footprint of BV onto the patch of land, well done, take a bow, really.
But seriously, there isnt room for a gnat to take a pee, let alone properly service a SL standard RL ground.

BV in its current state isnt exactly blessed with room but, that is tighter than a tight Yorkshireman two days before pat day.
But, well done for trying.
Perhaps on your next graphic, you could illustrate where access would be, not to mention the parking that YOU deem so unnecessary.
Eastmoor Dragons have more space than you are suggesting Trinity need

Yeah lets buy up half the surrounding area, re-route half the roads as the current ones are not suitable AND build the stadium. You are kidding yourself, we can't even get enough money out of them for a tart up of Belle Vue let alone that. It is a stalling tactic and nothing more than that. And the more people try to justify it the more of a success that tactic will be.

Vasty, sorry but it really isn't viable.

I know its not viable mate, was just commenting on the fact I probably underestimated the plot size in the first place. It`s a complete non starter for me, not even worth discussing, yet here we are

Oh give up man you're just plain wrong as the images prove but you've gobbed of now and can't admit your wrong, sad.

I to was doubtful at first but I visited the site and did the checks and it works out. Sorry if reality doesn't suit you but there is clearly more than enough room despite your attempts to deny the obvious. Truth is you can fit at least three 'bare bones footprint of BV' on that site which is more than you can do at BV! Get a grip.

Oh and stop twisting what I said, I never said parking wasn't required I said 3000 places were not required, try reading what people actually post.

I honestly don't get the aggression I'm simply illustrating the facts, frankly I don't care that much where the new stadium is so long as we get one and we survive - I'd have though you'd have felt the same and at least given it some serious thought rather than slagging off the messenger. I was only trying to add to the debate

Look if you can't debate it seriously then why bother? Yes it is viable but yes you would need to buy up some surrounding properties and thus if you'd actually bothered to read my posts I clearly state that this Council neither has the will or the desire. That however doesn't mean it isn't feesible because from someone who works in the industry it is.

I'm not Box/Rodders or Vasty but if it makes you feel better because you're losing the argument then fine accuse away

And from someone who also works in the industry, it wouldn't get through to the planning for starters, so no it isn't viable. But you never could admit to being wrong could you Vastman?

I'll disregard the personal stuff and accept that perhaps I was a bit hasty in criticising your map, because as I said above, I don't wish to make this personal and really do admire your optimism, but the simple fact remains that there are already two much better sites suitable for the stadium development, that don't involve compulsory purchases on peoples houses, land and businesses and if this shower of sheeite that has presided over this debacle for the past 10 years were ever serious about getting us a new stadium built, then it would have happened long before now !!
You only have to look at what has happened to Headingley over the past 18 months to realise that...where there's a will there's a way... where there isn't then it simply won't happen.

When have Wakefield Council shown that?

C'mon don't spoil the fun, these crazy kids have reinvigorated me with their boundless optimism for an absolutely non starter of idea.

Buying and knocking down houses etc, we can't even get anybody to stump up for a lick of paint at Belle Vue lol.

Why wouldn’t it get through to planning?

Well, I seem to have touched a raw nerve there.

Because I have major, major doubts about the site, access and size, you seem to translate this into me being negative and not wanting Trinity to find a new home, which, I think yo know is simply not the case.

There simply is no access to that site and trying to engineer something from Balne Lane would be a non starter.

Also, despite you being a "new" poster, I believe that you are either "on the inside" or some reincarnation of a previous poster, which is your prerogative.

As for casting doubt or being sceptical, well, we've been here so many times before havent we.

Therefore, until someone from the club or the Community Trust (not the bogus one) comes along and supports the scheme, I ,along with many others will doubt it's legitimacy and feasibility.

If they do support it, I would be ecstatic and I'll happily take the first barrow load of hardcore to help make a start.

Over to you, sir (or is that Sir)

I'm not sure why some are so against the idea either.
I personally don't think it's viable based on what I've seen but the map and the shopped in stadium helps work out what those with the original idea are trying to do.
I don't know whether they are doing it for a smoke screen or whether it is something they have put a lot of effort into working out but either way, why not consider it. If it turns out not to be viable, what harm did it do............[uas long as it doesn't delay any progress on the Belle Vue or Newmarket initiatives[/u.

I nearly moved the first post to the stadium thread but it obviously has a discussion in it's own right so I'll leave where it is.

And Sacred Cow..................stop picking on the new guy. Vastman would never use a nom de plume. That would be a ridiculous thing to do after all his moaning about people doing that on here. Vastman just isn't that kind of guy.
Welcome on board new guy.

That is my question too. I don't know about how planning works so it's a genuine question to those that do.

Just a quick look around the main things are below- a few of which I've been on the end of when extending properties over the years.

Whether the neighbours raise any objections

Whether the proposed design is of good quality and in keeping with surrounding properties

What impact your proposed development will have on your neighbours and the environment - for example through loss of light or loss of privacy. How your development would affect the surrounding area, eg if it would create lots more traffic

The number, size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings

The infrastructure available, eg roads and water supply

Any landscaping needs

What you want to use the development for.

There's a website here that lists a big list of things.

[urlhttps://www.richmond.gov.uk/what_is_a_valid_objection_to_a_planning_application[/url

So looking at that there’s no showstopper regarding planning.

No idea about planning but Fishermanscap does on the surface post a lot like Vasty and certainly has the attitude, who was it that always liked to superimpose "footprints" onto Google maps? Hmmm.

I actually can see what fishermancap take on this and it is possible to do but there's several other things to take account of and the one main one is cost, I can see it costing and taking far more time to develop