I am trying my hardest to work this one out and struggling.
If the LDF ratification makes it a local issue what was the purpose of the PI?
Why didnt all parties wait to see the outcome of LDF before going to PI?
If the land had been designated as brown belt then Leeds would not have been able to have complained about encroachment on Greenbelt.
Hope someone can clarify things for me.
Not a criticism of anyone on our side by the way.
Am just absolutely frustrated and in no need of any medication to help with digestive transit.
Up the Trin.

Am I right in saying that not all of the site has been re-classified as greenbelt ?

I think the situation was that when the Planning Application was being formulated the LDF process was in its very early stages and it would have meant wating until now before submitting the application which even following LDF ratification would have taken months so we would not have had Outline Consent untile the end of this year or early next year.

Planning was submitted and whilst it was known that the site was Greenbelt it does not follow that there would automatically have to be a Public Inquiry. As it was a divergence foom the current UDP/LDF it would automatically be called in by Government Office but has there been no objections or the objectors could have been satisfied then Goverment Office could then have passed it back to Wakefield MDC and allowed them to determine the application.

As we know Leeds CC made a statutory objection which meant that a PI was inevitable.

I think the strategy was correct and I fully expect the application to be approved within the next few days after the LDF is formally ratified by Council tomorrow which is at least 6 months earlier than waiting for the LDF. It may be as early as Thursday or Friday or early next week.

Don't think there is anything to be concerned about and we'll just have to put the celebrations back a few days.

Think your right and a small part of where the stadium is to go will encroach on it and thats the reason for the PI.Think this delay is just so that the ldf gets all the Is and Ts done and then we will know the outcome.The way Gouvernment departments work baffles most of us mortals and all it needs is one bit of legislation bumf to come in and the way things are done changes.Some times they put the cart before the horse and then find out its the other way round and you end up with delays.The decision will have been made and it will just need everything else being made secure.

AFAIK you are correct. From what I understand, the industrial units on the former pit site will be on the land released from greenbelt.
The stadium and sports facilities will be on greenbelt (or at least most of it). Sports facilities are something that are allowable on greenbelt.
The stands and auxiliary buildings need to have a special case made, but as there were no objections to the plans for the stadium, only the enabling industrial units, there is no problem. HTH.

Anything in this?

"The land that is to be taken out of Green Belt is the land for the B8 Wharehouse Units only. The Staduim and community pitches, Starter B1 Units , Hotel, Drive Thru' etc are all still on Green Belt even after the LDf report".

BigAlf's words.

I thought all the land had been brought out of GB classification, hence the "huge hudle" reporting of the LDF last week??

Correct. The LDF has removed 57ha of the site from greenbelt for B8 employment use, which is the area shown in the planning application for the proposed units.

The business starter units, the hotel, fast food & stadium complex is still on the greenbelt. However, sports fields and associated facilities are permitted development within the greenbelt. So the training pitches, changing rooms, and the stadium pitch are permitted. The stands that surround the stadium pitch & the car park are probably not permitted but greenbelt policy is not clear on this, so special circumstances will have to be demonstrated and I think that will be the case.

Th hotel & business starter units are still in the greenbelt but they provide a business case for the stadium conferencing facilities and the business starter units provide additional match day parking.

Given that Leeds CC did not object to the Stadium complex and the main thrust of their objection was around the B8 units, and while they objected to the starter units/hotel it was not a major part of their case, then it is all about the business starter units & hotel and how they support the business case for the stadium. Given that the area of land for this element of the site is small then turning down these elements of the scheme would be a rather stupid decision.

Whatever happens in the next few days, someone is going to build warehouse units on the Newmarket site, this is 99.9% certain. So if the SoS turns down the planning application the warehouses still get built and the community get nothing. A major own goal would have been scored, jobs and investment lost, and the community with no sports facilities BUT the warehouses still get built... can you see how silly that would make the government look!

Yep, AFAIK the stadium and associated facilities are classed as a special case which can be built on Green Belt, whereas the Industrial units needed the LDF to reclassify the land to Brown Belt/Employment Zone as no special case could be made for them.

So would i be right in assuming that this is nothing new (to anyone involved anyway!!) and therefore with less than 24 hours to go before the decision was to be announced, the delay is not likely to be caused by this (news)?

Thanks for that Sandal Cat.

Again, as far as I can understand it, this has not changed, and as IA said, the crux of the objectors argument was the industrial units and not the stadium (although they’re probably not happy about that either but saw an opportunity to object to that indirectly by preventing the enabling development) so I’m pretty certain this delay is nothing to do with that. Also more would’ve been made of that during the PI. To be honest the more I think about it the delay seems more likely to be the authorities getting all their ducks in a row.

That'll do for me!!!

And everyone else.

I remember (and most of you probably will also) when CT had delay after delay before we eventually got the full PP in. These things happen and its nothing new in local government procedures to do this. WTW now need to find out what has caused the delay and what is the new timescale. I don't think its much to worry about and the bit I posted earlier about part of the ground still been on greenbelt (allthough its news to me) seems old news to the people who know the story inside out.

It has been known from the day the planning application was lodged and it is no secret. Of course it isn't local government that are holding things up, it is national government. I also don't think we will ever get given a reason for the delay and equally we may or may not be given a revised date. The decision is now coming when it comes and everyone thinks that will be sooner rather than later... this week is probably still likley, but this is just a feeling... nothing more!

The announcement will probably just catch everyone by surprize and just happen with no warning. I've seen that happen a few times.

[urlhttp://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1136985/pickles-again-delays-wakefield-stadium-decision/[/url

[iPickles again delays Wakefield stadium decision

By Susanna Millar Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has again delayed making a decision on a proposed stadium and business park on the outskirts of Wakefield.

Pickles had previously said that he would make his decision on the business park and stadium scheme, which is for the use of Wakefield Trinity Wildcats rugby club, on or before today. The scheme comprises a stadium, warehousing, business units and a hotel, providing a total of almost 164,000 square metres of floorspace.

But spokeswoman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said that a decision would not be coming out today, and that she did not have a reason for the hold up.

No new timetable has been set for the decision, the DCLG spokeswoman said, but it would be made "as soon as possible".

It is the second time that Pickles has postponed making a decision on the scheme, which was originally due to be determined at the end of May.

The first delay was related to the need to give parties time to deal with the implications of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March. In the letter communicating this delay, the Department for Communities and Local Government said that Pickles would announce his decision on or before 19 June.

Developer York Court Properties says its plans for the site at Newmarket Lane, near Stanley, could create more than 2,000 jobs.

The scheme was called in by the communities secretary for a public inquiry after Wakefield Council gave it planning permission in October 2010.

The delay comes after a planning inspector appeared to give a boost to the plans after ruling that the site should no longer to be designated as green belt land in a report on Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s sites policy document.

Last week Pickles also put off making a decision for a second time on a controversial strategic rail frieght interchange scheme near St Albans, Hertfordshire.[/i

Could this drag on and on and on, some one help us please

Email from Michael Taylor, they arent giving anything away are they?

[urlhttp://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1136342/pickles-delays-post-nppf-decision-interchange/[/url

Seems like Eric Pickles office is making a habit of this at the moment!

Pickles delays post-NPPF decision on interchange

By Jamie Carpenter Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has delayed his decision on a controversial rail freight interchange near St Albans in Hertfordshire.

Pickles had been due to issue his decision on developer Helioslough’s planning appeal for a rail freight interchange at Park Street on or before 13 June.

But St Albans City and District Council said in a statement that it had been told that "this is no longer to be the case" and that no new decision date has been set.

Pickles’ decision on the interchange had been due by 5 April 2012, but following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March he informed all parties that he had postponed his decision to allow the parties time to deal with the implications of the framework.

The NPPF introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development and became a material consideration in planning decisions with immediate effect.

St Albans City and District Council said that it had provided its representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government on 16 April.

A DCLG spokesman said: "We hope to issue the decision as soon as we can."

In September 2010 the secretary of state dismissed Helioslough’s appeal against St Albans City and District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the interchange.

But Helioslough challenged the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court and on 1 July 2011 a judge quashed the decision and referred the matter back to Pickles to redetermine.

St Albans City and District Council had previously rejected two separate applications for the scheme, one in 2009 and one in 2007.

If the developer can challenge the decision in High Court, could Leeds Council and those opposing the scheme do the same for Newmarket, effectively dragging it on furthermore?

I know it is for all intents and purposes going to be futile but if the developer can challenge it through Legal processes then surely the same could be said of the opposition too?

Put those straws down fully



As far as i know the SOS's decision is final.

So we were all assuming after all this time the decision had surely been made.
Now it seems that it perhaps has not yet been made.
Hmmmm.

I'm pretty certain it has been made.