[

could you expand on that, why shouldn't we have a community stadium in the Wakefield area, what do we have bar for a running track in Thornes park




clearly you joined the forum to provoke arguments rather than discus it

I think in the fullness of time you'll find out that the developer is not sweetening the planning process, but is actually playing [iyou scratch my back and I'll scratch yours [/i with the landowner.

Someone had the very great foresight to purchase land close to a motorway junction and then expand that land by doing a deal with a farmer who owned the adjacent fields.

If you're going to play in the tail on the donkey then you should at least be somewhere in the vicinity of the donkey!

Otherwise you end up looking like an Asss!

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Did you find an e-mail for Lib Dem candidate for Morley & Outwood? '" I did - contact@jamesmonaghan.org.uk - he got the same e-mail from me, of course, as Mr. Calvert and Mr. Balls.

Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Did you find an e-mail for Lib Dem candidate for Morley & Outwood? '" I did - contact@jamesmonaghan.org.uk - he got the same e-mail from me, of course, as Mr. Calvert and Mr. Balls.

Hi

just wanted to pose a question and ask your opinion.

Do you think the fact that we are in the run up to a general election will impact on your application, by that I mean do you think the council will side with the group who has the most possible positive aspects for gaining votes e.g if they will gain more votes by turning down the application these being from the homes and business in the so called effected areas, or do they approve the planning permission hoping that this would swing the supporters vote?

We all know what slippery customers these council officials and mp's can be.

When will the application be heard and when can you expect a decision.

All the best

The application will be approved or rejected upon planning issues, not on the number of objecting or indeed supporting letters.

The politicians will pontificate in order to be seen to be acting upon their constituents behalf but once the election has passed they will soon disappear again. That’s the only issue the upcoming general election will present.

The decision is due in June, although it could be later

Thanks for your reply.

Whilst you say that The application will be approved or rejected upon planning issues, not on the number of objecting or indeed supporting letters surely the support or objection is also taken into consideration but obviously the decision not based only on this but on fact -so genuine issues not just silly arguments from MR not in my backyard etc. Am I correct in thinking that? sorry i'm not an expert on planning permission etc, however I know that when a family member was building a house changes in the plan had to be made to the design and placement of the building to satisfy the concerns of neighbours.

The publics’ comments will be taken into account, but it doesn’t follow that many objections will lead to a rejection and vice versa.

Thanks for your replies you are obviously very knowledgeable in this area

Good luck for your application

I am more than happy to supply you with my name and full postal address and in accordance with the RL Fans AUP, if you PM I will PM you my full details. I would of course expect you to reciprocate. My identity is not a secret and several people on this board know who I am and where I live already. I live in Stanley (if you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know this) just less than a mile from the development. Be rest assured, I had set up a website and an organisation (albeit faux) I would do just as the SWAG guys have done and put up my real name, along with names of other key individuals involved in my organisation and e-mail contact details. I am all in favour of their right to produce and distribute their flyer, as I am equally in favour of my right to express my opinion on their flyer. Of course it has been stated that their flyer could potentially be judged as libelling Wakefield Council if challenged in Civil proceedings (which I am sure it will not be) and as such I have stated that I feel that some of the content is inappropriate and can not condone their actions in this respect.

My issue is that this very small group of people have chosen to hide behind this identity and their purpose for doing so is to hide the nature of their objection, namely that they don't want this development next to them. It is NIMBY in all of it's aspect with the exception of the green-belt designation. I have already said (again, if you read my posts) that this is the only argument that has any merit and should therefore be scrutinised. They have then sought support from as many people as possible by, in some cases blatant mis-truths (the 4% thing being one) and distortion of facts. In doing so they have abused the trusting nature of many people who have seen their flyer and believed that everything contained in is the whole truth and that they have been sent this information by a genuine 'community conservation group'. Of course the only conservation this group is interested in is conserving the area of land around them from development! They don't care about anyone else, toads, frog, trees, newts or otters, etc, etc. They just care about themselves.



Well you clear don't because you think it might get called in 'regionally'... by whom exactly? Does the fair county of Yorkshire now have a devolved regional assembly... did I miss something? Maybe it is the 'Yorkshire' Community Conservation Group with which the Wakefield Community Conservation Group are affiliated, who are in turn affiliated to the English Community Conservation Group, who are going to call it in?



Look, it is very much a you scratch our back, we will scratch yours scenario, nobody will ever deny that but that of course does not make their current planning application any less valid. The development of the stadium does have a positive impact on their proposals as well, the hotel and fast food outlet being made attractive to investors because of the stadium and park and ride scheme. You clearly have no idea how this works do you.

Actually, as you know, because you know what the original consulted Wakefield LDF says, that in actual fact Wakefield DOES want a community stadium and it was put in the LDF by asking the public what they wanted... they (the people of Wakefield) have already said they want a community sports stadium and greater community sport facilities. That is why it went in the LDF, prior to any of this plan even being announced. Did you not know... it was well publicised? Or are you like the many people writing in who think they have not being 'consulted' despite the fact they all know about it???

Quote ="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"I did - contact@jamesmonaghan.org.uk - he got the same e-mail from me, of course, as Mr. Calvert and Mr. Balls.'" Thanks, will copy him in on my e-mail to the three Elmet and Morley PCC's as well.

Quote ="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"I did - contact@jamesmonaghan.org.uk - he got the same e-mail from me, of course, as Mr. Calvert and Mr. Balls.'" Thanks, will copy him in on my e-mail to the three Elmet and Morley PCC's as well.

Ok, now that I have replied to rugbyball (clearly someone who is not actual an RL fan and has just joined the forum to proffer their opinion just on this issue, given their rubbish screen name... not that I have a problem with that, just an observation) I can give you some interesting news.

I have had a telephone conversation this evening with Anthony Calvert, the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Morley and Outwood. I know some of you have had some e-mails replies from him but they were quite short and not as clear as supporters of the scheme would ideally like. As such, I now have his permission to post his position on the scheme following our conversation. It was quite long and we talked around the subject but we agreed that I could categorically post the following key messages from him.

He fully supports the current proposal for the new Wakefield Community Stadium to be located on the Newmarket Lane site.

He agrees and fully supports that this area of land should be developed and as such the green-belt designation be lifted to allow this OR potential other future development of this site to take place should that be the desire of a developer (now or in future) or Wakefield council etc.

He went on to add that he felt the green-belt designation should be lifted (given the above) because he felt that this was green-belt land purely by planning designation only and not because it was of outstanding beauty or of any current benefit to the community or the constituency. He said it was former industrial land, it was unkempt and he felt that the ongoing issue of fly-tipping was getting worse.

Now, this is the interesting bit in some ways, as he stated, it will probably actually make him more unpopular with anti-crowd than he already is (he has already said this to some of the Newmarket Lane residents and Wakefield CCG!).

His concern is around this being the best possible use of this land in term of development? He felt that more of a mixed use development should be looked at and considered and not just B2 (offices) and B8 (industrial and distribution uses) use land that York Court is proposing. He elaborated by saying he would like to see more land given over to community sports use (if possible financially) and look at other development and regeneration strategies, such as some retail and other mixed uses alongside some of the B2 & B8 development proposed.

He also added that while he would like to see this land be developed as a more mixed use scheme, that building a community sports stadium to allow Wakefield Trinity Wildcats (and any other sports teams within the Wakefield District... it is a community sports stadium after all?) was a priority and if that was best served in a timely fashion (given the franchise issue) by the development currently proposed he would be in favour.

What he is saying is, is that he wants to see the land developed and he is just asking some questions around the current proposal being the best to suit the district, first and foremost, rather than it suiting York Court and the wider district and local people losing out slightly with current plan.

Given that, he has asked if I could put him in touch with the guys at SWAG to see if they could facilitate a meeting with York Court, so he could better understand their current proposal and ask about incorporating some more mixed uses in their scheme. I am of course going to do just that.

Finally, I did ask him about the three PPC's from Elmet and Rothwell publicly declaring that they intend to work to block the scheme (given that he is broadly in favour)? He said that given he had a Conservative colleague currently among those three and that the general election will take place on the 6th May (before the planning permission for this scheme will be heard) he did not wish to comment at this time about their decision and actions but, if he is successfully elected as the MP for Morley and Outwood, he would then publicly do so.

I think that is fair enough and probably tells you all you need to know, without saying it!

I think that sums it up and I do hope I have conveyed what he wanted me to convey well.

He finally added, quite correctly, that while he was a PCC and therefore possibly the future MP for Morley & Outwood, that it was ultimately down to Wakefield Council and the office of the Secretary of State (of the whomever is in government after the 6th May) to decide to grant or deny permission for the development.

Well that will do for me, he is DEFINITELY getting my vote



.... although he was going to get it anyway!!!

Yes ,great work again Inflatable_Armadillo and it is good to know where exactly Anthony Calvert stands on the development.

Outstanding Inflatable_Armadillo1

clearly you ought to be more 'officialy' involved as someone with your grasp of the facts, clarity of understanding of the issues and obvious communication skills would be real assett to the cause.

I agree brilliant work, and also thankyou to the time and effort you have put into informing us the outcomes of your telephone conversations or email's as well as addressing some of the issue's and worries we may have, upon reading a particular argument or letter of objection from certain parties and body's,



TRB - Sign Mr_Armadillo up

TRB SIGN HIM UP
SIGN HIM UP
TRB SIGN HIM UP

I know Inflatable Armadillo is a Rhino's fan but he is certainly putting time and effort into the Stadium issues.

I think we should make him an honorary Trinity fan. He would be excused from wanting Trinity to win when we play the Rhino's.

Its a shame that IA's efforts are not matched by the rest of Wakeys apathetic populous? Well done fellow, always a pleasure to read and a big thank you for your efforts.

Indeed it is. IA's enthusiasm for this development is clear to see and his insights into the planning and construction side is very much welcome.

TRB and I have had a few chats on the phone over the last couple of weeks and I making sure he knows everything I am finding out, much of which (to be fair) he often knows already. He knows his onions does TRB!



I am probably more useful to him and SWAG by not being officially involved at this time! TRB and SWAG has to be a little more cautious and circumspect, because while they are a fan-based pressure group dedicated to getting Wakefield a new home, they are of course in contact with (to a greater or lesser extent) the club, the council and the developer.

I am however an individual that lives close to the proposed development, is a Rhino's season ticket holder and therefore can't not be accused of just wanting this for, shall we say, emotional reasons and at all costs and as such, can say and do what I want!!!

I have offered to help and support where I can and am more than happy to do so. Finally, I also know if TRB and the SWAG guys need me, they will ask, but maybe not asking just yet or even at all, could be equally as good a tactic?

IA - yer a true gent!!!!

Tonight's Evening Post 14th April www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6224458.jp

Tonight's Evening Post 14th April www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6224458.jp

Quote ="The Trip"Tonight's Evening Post 14th April www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6224458.jp'" Leeds City Council are fully aware of the development and indeed have contributed their thoughts towards it. This isn't a row between the two councils as the YEP is trying to manufacture, but a row between local residents with a councillor who has aspirations of becoming an MP and the creation of much needed employment opportunities and sports facilities.

Quote ="The Trip"Tonight's Evening Post 14th April www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6224458.jp'" Leeds City Council are fully aware of the development and indeed have contributed their thoughts towards it. This isn't a row between the two councils as the YEP is trying to manufacture, but a row between local residents with a councillor who has aspirations of becoming an MP and the creation of much needed employment opportunities and sports facilities.

Another non-story really but the YEP are clearly sensing something they think is worth writing about over the next few weeks, so are happy to wade in.

This story is once more a tactic to make as much noise as possible with the hope that it makes the objection to the proposal look more wide-spread than it actual is, and of course they are trying hard not to appear to be NIMBY's and not making a great job of doing so IMO, but you can't knock them for having a go!

Andrew Calvert told me last night that he understood that the real active level of objection was limited across these three groups to around 30 to 40 people in reality, which includes the Newmarket Lane residents directly affected.

It is interesting, reading between the lines of the article a little, that they appeared to have decided to drop or been unable to mobilise any real support other than in Methley & Oulton and have not mentioned Stanley (and the areas of Stanley, such as Bottomboat and Moorhouse) that are all closer to the development than either of these communities!

The whole public enquiry thing is nonsense and again they must know that (maybe they don't?) and they know that Leeds or Wakefield City Councils have no power to instigate a public enquiry. Of course the other thing is, it was always highly likely there would be a public enquiry anyway because of the green-belt designation! If and when this does happen, and the project gets called in by the Secretary of States office as expected, they will be back in the paper claiming that they have brought all the pressure and it was them that forced this public enquiry because level of objection is high, blah, blah.

The two, shall I say legitimate, groups among the three listed do have a track record of objecting to anything they and their small group of 'active members' don't like and most of that would appear to be purely NIMBY in origin. They would appear to be like a Daily Mail army for hire and happy to wade in just because the reason most of the people turn up to the meetings in the first place is to moan. I am being a little harsh, because I suspect when they don't have something big to moan about, they get lots of good things done for their community by hard work... and some more moaning!

Thanks for all the information you give and also for sharing it with the rest of the forum. It is good to hear comments and reports for someone not directly involved and can give objective information.