Thought the Leeds Councillors had been told to pipe down? This article would seem to say different. www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans

Thought the Leeds Councillors had been told to pipe down? This article would seem to say different. www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans

The land on the opposite side of the M62 actually in Leeds territory is currantly up for sale, presumably they will have the same objections, also the article says it's in rothwell!?!?!?!?!

Quote ="Tricky2309"Thought the Leeds Councillors had been told to pipe down? This article would seem to say different. www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans'" Quote Smith does not believe that local infrastructure could cope with a development of this size. He argued that existing roads could not cope with the increase in traffic, and that drainage systems would be overwhelmed, increasing the risk of flooding.'" Well the last part of this paragraph shows the councillor has not looked as the drainage strategy. There are plenty of attenuation ponds and ditches are incorporated into the development and the exist foul water drainage has capacity for the extra waste water connections. The pumping station the water goes to also has spare capacity.

Quote ="Tricky2309"Thought the Leeds Councillors had been told to pipe down? This article would seem to say different. www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans'" Quote Smith does not believe that local infrastructure could cope with a development of this size. He argued that existing roads could not cope with the increase in traffic, and that drainage systems would be overwhelmed, increasing the risk of flooding.'" Well the last part of this paragraph shows the councillor has not looked as the drainage strategy. There are plenty of attenuation ponds and ditches are incorporated into the development and the exist foul water drainage has capacity for the extra waste water connections. The pumping station the water goes to also has spare capacity.

Yes thought I had heard about the SUDs before. It's not the accuracy of it I am concerned about, because if it was true then we would really struggle to get it passed, its the damage it can potentially do as yet more negative publicity, and cause those not aware of the full plans to form the wrong opinion and become anti the development.

Yet another nothing story.
Lazy journalism prevails once again.
For me the thought patterns of some journalists regarding our club is all too clear.

"What can we slate them on... Taxes!!! Brilliant!!...Right can't use tax man any more, what else have we got????.....Stadium!!"

Anything to add fuel to the fire!

Well come this time next month they just might have to think a little harder for something else to slate us on if this comes off.
Everything is coming together on that front IMO. The right people are making the right noises so to speak.
FWIW is the adjacent land that is up for sale part of the "green belt"?- Could Yorkcourt purchase it with the intent for it to become natural greenbelt land?- As a sweetener so to speak?- Just an idea..

Quote ="Khlav Kalash"Well the last part of this paragraph shows the councillor has not looked as the drainage strategy. There are plenty of attenuation ponds and ditches are incorporated into the development and the exist foul water drainage has capacity for the extra waste water connections. The pumping station the water goes to also has spare capacity.'" Not according to this cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf

Quote ="Khlav Kalash"Well the last part of this paragraph shows the councillor has not looked as the drainage strategy. There are plenty of attenuation ponds and ditches are incorporated into the development and the exist foul water drainage has capacity for the extra waste water connections. The pumping station the water goes to also has spare capacity.'" Not according to this cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf

Quote ="allmatt"Not according to this cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf'" You'llhave to enlighten me as to what you've found as I can't access the planning portal from my phone.

Quote ="allmatt"Not according to this cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf'" You'llhave to enlighten me as to what you've found as I can't access the planning portal from my phone.

Its a letter from Yorkshire Water dated 14 September saying they have no objection to the proposed sewer diversion but it needs to be proven as the current sewers in the area do not have the capacity for the proposed development and so on

This was the key bit :

"We would not object to the use of a suitably worded "Grampian" Condition such as: "Prior to the
commencement of the development a detailed scheme of foul drainage, including an analysis
of the off site sewerage and treatment capacity, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the LPA. Furthermore, the development shall not be occupied until such time as it is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the LPA that there is adequate capacity in the local
sewerage and waste water treatment system to properly dispose of and treat the foul water
arising from the development to the required standard".

Fair enough. I was wrong about that, however, the pumping station, where I imagine the sewer diversion will discharge does have capacity. I distinctly remember seeing that on the drawing. It still doesn't change the point. There should be no flooding because of this development as the infrastructure is being upgraded.

It's a minor issue really. There will be area's that need tweaking and this is one. I'm sure Yorkcourt will work with the relevent body to ensure the best end result for all concerned

Indeed, approved designs will be produced during the full planning application process.

Ok hope this is the correct topic RR The Otters, water Voles, and Enviro mentalists! are still objecting even after the latest set of documents. cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf "West Yorkshire Ecology wish to maintain an objection to this application." There is no mention of a meeting on the 22nd on this official list? mg.wakefield.gov.uk/ieListMeetin ... r=2010&J=2 I'm sure TRB Leisure ( hope it went well for you yesterday aswell ) will have the answers.

Ok hope this is the correct topic RR The Otters, water Voles, and Enviro mentalists! are still objecting even after the latest set of documents. cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf "West Yorkshire Ecology wish to maintain an objection to this application." There is no mention of a meeting on the 22nd on this official list? mg.wakefield.gov.uk/ieListMeetin ... r=2010&J=2 I'm sure TRB Leisure ( hope it went well for you yesterday aswell ) will have the answers.

Looking good so far...

Thanks I do try my best

I'm sure many find you very trying.

just letting you know the facts - that's all.

That's not quite true

"We would reiterate that the public sewer network =#FF0040does not have adequate capacity available to
accommodate the anticipated foul water domestic waste discharge from the proposals (Stadium and
overall) directly adjacent to the site and including Watergate Methley sewage pumping station.
Additionally, the public sewer network in this locality =#FF0040has no spare surface water capacity."

Check out the drainage strategy drawing. Foul pumping station has capacity and the storage ponds deal with the surface water.

cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf "Yorkshire Water have no objection to the proposed public sewer diversion provided it is feasible, practical and follows formal procedure. The sewer diversion remains to be proven." You think this might be a condition? You think this might be something they will include? You bet. You can bet your paper round money for the week they will be already working hard on how this can be feasibly done. If it is a "sticky wicket" as you claim do you not think Royal Hawskins and Yorkcourt will be working flat out on ways to resolve it? Let them take the strain. Don't worry about it! If I were you I'd worry about getting your bike in the shed before it rains!

cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf "Yorkshire Water have no objection to the proposed public sewer diversion provided it is feasible, practical and follows formal procedure. The sewer diversion remains to be proven." You think this might be a condition? You think this might be something they will include? You bet. You can bet your paper round money for the week they will be already working hard on how this can be feasibly done. If it is a "sticky wicket" as you claim do you not think Royal Hawskins and Yorkcourt will be working flat out on ways to resolve it? Let them take the strain. Don't worry about it! If I were you I'd worry about getting your bike in the shed before it rains!

That is a quote from a letter from YWA 16th Sept. If they are wrong in what they say I stand corrected but I would expect they have the correct facts.

How many times does it have to be said mate.
We tell you the reasons we want this in our city, you don't accept them/like them.
So please do us all a solid and take a break from this forum.

Yes it is, however it misleads the sentiment of the letter as a whole.

They've also confirmed to the drainage consultants on drainage strategy drawing that the pumping station has spare capacity. Regardless, it's something that can be delt with so it is a non-issue.

Ok lets agree to disagree.

The red letters are very clever - Bit childish though don't you think?

By the way, you and others will note that I have not insulted you personally in anyway.

I hope you feel a bit silly about that!!





If you don't you should.