Is it usual for these sort of documents, with people's names and email addresses, to be hosted on the council's Website for the world to see? It did surprise me.

I'm back!

Right - this issue arose yesterday, has been discussed with all the relevant parties and it is agreed that the right thing to do is to press on with the planning meeting. This item will NOT prevent the meeting being granted a 'mindful to accept' verdict. It could end up as a reserved matter, which would then require further work following the 22nd, but it could also be dealt with in time for the 22nd - it is merely the submission of further information requested by the HA.

We did not mention this as it alters nothing in reality. It is a shame that this has come out in this manner, but we were not aware that this was going on the portal so soon.

=#BF0040IT IS NOT GAME OVER - NOTHING HAS CHANGED - NOTHING IS WRONG AND THIS CAN BE DEALT WITH CALMLY AND PROFESSIONALLY.

As we get nearer the time, it is not surprising that we get a little panicky, but this is very much an item for which a simple question would have resulted in a simple answer. Most of the panel at last nights meeting were aware of this issue, and they all seemed fairly convincing in their belief that this would happen!

Stay strong!

Thanks for the update. Good to know.

Park on the hard shoulder, be reet

Recommendation to the Planning Committee: RECOMMENDATION In the event that Members consider the application should be determined rather than deferred for further examination of some of the issues in the report then Members could either refuse the application based on the planning policy issues raised in the report or be minded to approve the application on the basis that there are benefits which outweigh the policy issues raised in the report and subject to conditions, section 106 obligations, referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan involving green belt land, and the Highways Agency direction being removed. Should the Secretary of State not wish to call in the application a decision could be delegated to the Service Director subject to a Section 106 covering:- and conditions the wording of which to be delegated to the Service Director in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. Source: mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgConvert2PD ... &T=10&J=23

Recommendation to the Planning Committee: RECOMMENDATION In the event that Members consider the application should be determined rather than deferred for further examination of some of the issues in the report then Members could either refuse the application based on the planning policy issues raised in the report or be minded to approve the application on the basis that there are benefits which outweigh the policy issues raised in the report and subject to conditions, section 106 obligations, referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan involving green belt land, and the Highways Agency direction being removed. Should the Secretary of State not wish to call in the application a decision could be delegated to the Service Director subject to a Section 106 covering:- and conditions the wording of which to be delegated to the Service Director in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. Source: mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgConvert2PD ... &T=10&J=23

That just about covers every possible outcome.

Yup, it does. A scheme of this nature and size was never going to get approved at the first hearing and that is now guaranteed. Refused or mindful to approve are the remaining two options. FWIW I think it will be a mindful to approve but with the caveats stated. As for being called in by the SofS, toss a coin.

Isn't mindful to approve basically the same as approving, only except all those factors have to be attended to before it can?

It is mindful to approve - subject to the agreement of the S of S.

The items which require further attention can become conditions of the approval which can then be dealt with as the development progresses.

YOU NEED TO SHOUT, no ones listening

There does seem to be still a lot of objections by different organisations is that normal

and it looks as though 'The Oulton Society' have been 'primed' by someone. Hmmm I wonder who that could have been?

1,140 letters of objection and 252 letters of support?

I don't fully understand complaints and planning matters but at a guess i'd say "if the council" want this to happen "it will". don't forget the 15k though.

The 15k which is referenced in there as 10k?

It refers to over 10k in the planning application pack thats been but on the wdmc site.

Having read the majority of the 60 pages on there, I think it would take a miracle of biblical proportions for the development to get the go ahead anytime soon. The highways issues are just one of a whole host of issues.

The Spatial Policy people seem to disagree with the development on a number of issues, there is comment that the assumption of the designation of the change of use is premature, and the list goes on and on and on.

Hats off to TRB and others who have worked tirelessly on this project, but I think the writings on the wall - we better enjoy next season - it is likely to be our last in SL- if not our last full stop with the financial situation the club is in.

There's a lot of positives too Tricky. I would not give up hope yet.

As a wakey fan you tend to look at the negatives - its habit.

The way I read the document is that it has to be referred to the SoS Office full stop - Therefore even if a "minded to approve" decision is granted, it could still be beset with problems from thereon in.

I know some will not appreciate my negativity, and know alot more about the whole thing than I do, but to the laymen it ain't looking good.

As I see it the Highways Agency objection is such that they require further improvements/clarifications to the Travel Plan which is not uncommon and they would prefer planning to be deferred. It does not look like they have served an Article 14 Notice (unless I've missed it) which prevents planning being granted. Their concerns can be addressed in due course.

The Planning Officers recommendation show on the previous page suggests that the Committee can either defer the application or grant a "mindful to approve" and condition the application and leave the final decision subject to the Service Director and a Section 106 Agreement.

As others have said =#FF4000THIS IS NOT A SHOWSTOPPER

I still think next Friday it will receive a "Mindful to Approve" subject to conditions (as are any consent) and will not be referred to a Public Inquiry and will receive a consent.

Timing is crucial and we are in the hands of Wakefield MDC. If the deal with the application next week we are okay. If they defer it we will have seen their true colours but I'm confident of a successful outcome next Friday.

First, the application was always going to be referred to the regional office with a strong likelihood it would get sent to the government office, so it was always going to be a 'minded to approve'.

I have just got back so need to look at the HA report.

I think the Highways Agency have got a cheek objecting to this

How the hell have they got away with suicide rat run they call A1/M1 link road junction between Lofthouse & Stourton a death trap waiting to happen

why be so pesamistic think of your glass as half full

Without wanting to sound negative, if this issue was known yesterday, would it have not been an idea to mention it at last nights meeting, especially if as TRB says, it's not a problem? This was a great chance to tell people about a problem that was under control, so when it did become public knowledge there wasn't the panic that we are witnessing on here today? A lot lot of positve vibes seem to have come out of last night, much of which appears to have been lost within the last few hours.