I was thinking "clubcard" points TBH.

Your generosity knows no bounds!!

I have my tin hat on!!



but to keep you up to speed (Not that I have any support or involvement with them - just an interest in the whole process, both Cas and Wakey - Ask I_A and I am sure he will confirm)

AFAIK - Barton Willmore represent the local objectors (I presume) their client is Wakefield Residents Interest Group - whoever that may be.

BTW They are representing the same group at the LDF Inquiry also.

No 5h1t Sherlock - that's exactly what it says on the letter.

A letter which you have seen only today but hey!

Whatever!



I'm sure you have known of their involvement for weeks/months.

Whereas I'm certain that you definitely have known about it for weeks/months (which is it?) and I can completely understand that given that level of inside knowledge, you chose not to make a post about it until someone else had posted a public document containing all the details. Furthermore, I think it's totally credible that when you did choose to reveal the extent of your inside information, it amounted to nothing more than was actually in that public document that someone else had posted.

What, and indeed, ever.

Barton Willmore are planning consultants, as I am sure you have gathered, so yes, they are guns for hire by the nature of what they do as consultants. It is unusual for a planning consultant to be asked to speak out against a development, because the overwhelming majority of their work will be for developers, again for obvious reasons, and most objectors to a scheme don't have the money to pay someone upwards of £100 an hour for their time!!!

We have known for sometime that they intended to get a planning consultant/advocate on board but didn't know exactly who they were... but now we do.

As for bigalf, well you can't have known about them for long, because on the very draft LDF programme issued on the 26th October they were not shown on at all (although, we thought it might be D J Taylor as we were not sure who he was), then the programme, issued just yesterday, suddenly this Wakefield Residents Interest Group appears on the LDF documents and then this e-mail (well spotted Wakefield No. 1) appears. I suspect they have not wanted to start the 'fee clock' ticking until as late as possible to keep the cost down, which I assume some of the more affluent residents of Newmarket Lane will be footing the bill for.

Wakefield Residents Interest Group is not quite as emotive as some of their previous group names, but I think the Newmarket Lane Residents wanted to stress that they are indeed Wakefield Residents (and not Leeds) and to counter the valid criticism and known fact that most of the current objectors to the scheme, don't live in Wakefield!

So, no surprise really, we were expecting this consultant to appear and he will clearly speaking on behalf of the Newmarket Lane residents themselves.

We know that June Fender is also going to put herself forward as representing Wakefield & Leeds Community Conservation Group and not Methley Residents Association. We heard that maybe one or two people involved with MRA are not comfortable with how June has used her position and the newsletter but also, we think she is trying to get away from the being in Leeds tag and not Wakefield.

So, like I said, this is the roller coaster and this is what we expected was going to happen.

iA,
how much impact will these late changes have,
how much credibility will the consultants give the Residents Group
Will they bring the expected argument or is it possible they've got something up their sleeve.

My worry here is that for residents to pay a consultant £100+ per hour they must be confident that their money is being well spent.
Do they have some 'game changing' info that they want delivered in the most professional manner they can so as to ensure it derails the whole project?

I hope someone points out the incongruity of their position at the hearing; a few choice pro-development quotes from their website should be enough to raise questions about their credibility.

I'm about to email them by the way, to say thank you for reversing their stated position on development in the pay of a few NIMBY's who can't see past their own back garden, in an attempt to block a community sports facility that will benefit the WMD for generations to come in terms of public health, inward investment and community cohesion. Way to go Barton Willmore!

You may find that BW are the retained consultants for one or more of the 'alternative' sites which were removed from the draft LDF plans and are not supported currently by WDC.

Either way, it all goes to show that we must maintain our guard on all levels!

Does this document suggest a working relationship between BW and LCC on other developments and related enquiries, if so could they be here at the behest of LCC and not the residents? docs.google.com/a/student.leedsm ... wdeQ&pli=1

Does this document suggest a working relationship between BW and LCC on other developments and related enquiries, if so could they be here at the behest of LCC and not the residents? docs.google.com/a/student.leedsm ... wdeQ&pli=1

The title Wakefield Residents Interest Group makes me laugh.
Residents I have spoken to from areas such as Sandal, Crigglestone, Durkar, Walton, Crofton etc etc could either not care less about the proposed development or else think it good for the area as a whole re. jobs and amenities.
They are falsely trying to claim they represent a wider community than they actually do.

Will I be pointing this out to the planning inspector in the inquiry, of course I will, but equally lets not get too upset about Barton Willmore, they are a company, they employ good professional people to work on behalf of their clients and make money and profit for their business.

In this case they are working for some residents, so this is a position they take infrequently yes, but they can't be chastised for taking a brief and working on behalf of a paying client. It is similar to any lawyer or advocate who is hired to speak in defence of any clients, people have a right to be professional represented (and pay!) if they so wish and you can't have a go at the company for in effect working for a paying client. They don't have a conflict of interest, because Yorkcourt use a different planning consultancy, and you expect Yorkcourt to have a planning consultant... so there is no difference. Just because we disagree with them, doesn't mean that they are bad people or a bad company. They are working for a client, and they are paid to build and make a case on behalf of that client. Nothing more, nothing less!

PS. Their case in weak BTW, but you know that already!

Yes, I think they most probably could be as well... good point!

We were expecting this, so they are not late changes, they are just gearing up for the Inquiry like we are and we are seeing more of their 'hand' as the start draws closer... however, we are not worried, but neither are we complacent and we just need to keep things real.

We don't think they have anything up their sleeve other than they are in league with another developer who had his site rejected under the LDF selection by Wakefield and they are promoting this site over the Newmarket site... and I hadn't thought, until TRB mentioned it, that it could be this developer that who is funding Barton Willmore! Although, some of the residents down Newmarket Lane are not short of a bob or two and still think, wrongly IMO, that this whole thing is a disaster for them and their houses will be worth nothing if this goes ahead! They are wrong... IMO!

I looked through their website trying to find a possible reason why they would be interested in objecting to the Newmarket development but couldn't find anything, so I thought this could be a possible reason..

Quote ="The Clan"Does this document suggest a working relationship between BW and LCC on other developments and related enquiries, if so could they be here at the behest of LCC and not the residents? docs.google.com/a/student.leedsm ... wdeQ&pli=1'" No, Local Authority's have plenty of people who know planning well, they rarely use planning consultants, but do work alongside them when they are working with developers in their cities and towns... you don't think that Wakefield MDC and Yorkcourt's planning consultants are ignoring each other do you!

Quote ="The Clan"Does this document suggest a working relationship between BW and LCC on other developments and related enquiries, if so could they be here at the behest of LCC and not the residents? docs.google.com/a/student.leedsm ... wdeQ&pli=1'" No, Local Authority's have plenty of people who know planning well, they rarely use planning consultants, but do work alongside them when they are working with developers in their cities and towns... you don't think that Wakefield MDC and Yorkcourt's planning consultants are ignoring each other do you!

I am sure they are interested because someone is paying them to be interested and that is ok, that is what their business is. I think you are both probably correct though!

I understand the reality of it, but I'm also one of those idealistic fools who believe that hypocrisy is a bad thing, even when money is at stake.

My point was that there appears to be a credibility gap for this company to represent the NIMBY's and I still believe that to be the case.

That's all - I'm not trying to bring down the system!

Just following Bren's hypocricy route;
These consultants COULD be working for a developer of one of the sites in the LDF, prior to it getting changed to include all of the Newmarket site?
So now because their sites are no longer part of the LDF, they are objecting (via consultants) to the development, simply because it, (the LDF) no longer involves them?
Isn't that all a bit childish and likely to set one developer off against another, and hey presto no developing ever gets done or it takes longer than for ever to ever get anything done?
Or am i being simplistic?

Unlike WTW who claim the stadium will benifit the whole district

I think that the Community Sports facilities are the items that will benefit the whole district more than the stadium element... even though I understand your comment is tongue in cheek! Having a floodlit 4G pitch, a second grass training/community pitch and the sports hall facilities are what make this scheme a true community development. Now that College Grove are ripping up the Football/Rugby Pitch and replacing it with an Olympic standard hockey pitch (blue with pink lines) then the district loses another all purpose grass surface (where many district RL final games are played) for a dedicated hockey only pitch. Other than the private schools in the district, where else are the community facilities in Wakefield?

When both GH & Newmarket hopefully gets built, then I wouldn't be surprised and would see no problem with Cas training at Newmarket on the 4G pitch during the winter when they would want to keep off the GH pitch, other than for matches.

Correct it was tongue in cheek! a little jest at how people choose when to use an angle and when not to use the same angle depending on how they want the argument to look, The rest i agree with it would make total sense to use the training pitches. ( Cas High has a full size artificial pitch floodlit )

Loads of Appeal Documentation on council planning website now

We are the 99% ( sorry a south park ref :/ )