New document added today on the Newmarket Application,
I’ve posted the relevant information. good news that it’s another None Objection for the Newmarket site.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
From: Woffenden, Frances <FWoffenden@wakefield.gov.uk> Sent: 26 October 2021 16:16
To: Eaglestone, Michael <meaglestone@wakefield.gov.uk> Subject: 20/02249/FUL Plot 8 Newmarket Lane Wakefield
Michael
I have reviewed the new information. On the whole it is a vast improvement and EH would not object to this scheme in principle in terms of design and layout.
The ES addendum has updated the noise assessment to some extent, so updated information in terms of BS4142 has been provided at the original 4 noise sensitive receptors but it has not accounted for the receptor to the south east on Bottomboat Road (this receptor was not of concern with the original plans as they were screened from the service yard by the buildings)
The applicants have provided an updated noise model which indicates the south east receptor would not be subject to adverse impact in . However this does not provide reassurance for the type of noise arising from the service yard area. The plan below indicates that the service yard and car park are elevated above the surroundings and it would be helpful to see a section from the service yard to the receptor. Given the general increase in noise which will inevitably be associated with the overall development in this location and the specific type of noise from service yards, I consider it reasonable to ask that the south east corner of the service yard has acoustic screening. I understand that the service yard to the adjoining development will also have this type of mitigation incorporated in the design.
With regard to the properties to the north of the site and the impact of the Unit 1 service yard, the sections they have provided don’t extend to the properties and I cannot tell what screening the topography provides. If it is relatively flat them my recommendation would be for acoustic fencing along the northern edge of the service yard. Given that they are already subject to additional noise at the back of their properties from the relocation of Newmarket Lane any additional impact from the plot 8 development should be mitigated as far as possible.
Please can you raise these issues with the developer.
Kind regards Frances
Frances Woffenden
Team Manager – Community Protection Environmental Health
Wakefield Council
fwoffenden@wakefield.gov.uk
Tel 0345 8 506 506 Mob 07810 152583 www.wakefield.gov.uk

New document added today on the Newmarket Application,
I’ve posted the relevant information. good news that it’s another None Objection for the Newmarket site.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
From: Woffenden, Frances <FWoffenden@wakefield.gov.uk> Sent: 26 October 2021 16:16
To: Eaglestone, Michael <meaglestone@wakefield.gov.uk> Subject: 20/02249/FUL Plot 8 Newmarket Lane Wakefield
Michael
I have reviewed the new information. On the whole it is a vast improvement and EH would not object to this scheme in principle in terms of design and layout.
The ES addendum has updated the noise assessment to some extent, so updated information in terms of BS4142 has been provided at the original 4 noise sensitive receptors but it has not accounted for the receptor to the south east on Bottomboat Road (this receptor was not of concern with the original plans as they were screened from the service yard by the buildings)
The applicants have provided an updated noise model which indicates the south east receptor would not be subject to adverse impact in . However this does not provide reassurance for the type of noise arising from the service yard area. The plan below indicates that the service yard and car park are elevated above the surroundings and it would be helpful to see a section from the service yard to the receptor. Given the general increase in noise which will inevitably be associated with the overall development in this location and the specific type of noise from service yards, I consider it reasonable to ask that the south east corner of the service yard has acoustic screening. I understand that the service yard to the adjoining development will also have this type of mitigation incorporated in the design.
With regard to the properties to the north of the site and the impact of the Unit 1 service yard, the sections they have provided don’t extend to the properties and I cannot tell what screening the topography provides. If it is relatively flat them my recommendation would be for acoustic fencing along the northern edge of the service yard. Given that they are already subject to additional noise at the back of their properties from the relocation of Newmarket Lane any additional impact from the plot 8 development should be mitigated as far as possible.
Please can you raise these issues with the developer.
Kind regards Frances
Frances Woffenden
Team Manager – Community Protection Environmental Health
Wakefield Council
fwoffenden@wakefield.gov.uk
Tel 0345 8 506 506 Mob 07810 152583 www.wakefield.gov.uk

Another document on the Newmarket Development added today. Thankfully, another none objection.
After listening to MC last night, he mentioned JM would hopefully, make a announcement re stadium in the next week or so. I think that would take us beyond the next planning meeting Nov 18th, therefore it’s reasonable to think the 2 relevant applications will not be heard this month. Disappointed.

Mr Michael Eaglestoneg
City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Planning Services
Newton Bar
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2TX






Our ref: RA/2020/142551/02-L01
Your ref: 20/02249/FUL

Date: 21 October 2021



Dear Mr Eaglestone

Proposal: FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES (29,417 SQ. M, 5,083 SQ. M AND 4,700 SQ M.) (USE CLASS Bicon_cool.gif TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY OFFICES, LORRY AND CAR PARKING, HARD-STANDING, YARD, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND A NEW PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTE FROM THE B6135 TO THE TRANS PENNINE TRAIL.
 
Location: PLOT 8 LAND SOUTH OF NEWMARKET LANE STANLEY WAKEFIELD WF3 4BU

Thank you for your consultation regarding the above proposal which was received on 1 October 2021.
 
We have reviewed the updated information submitted with the application and we have no further comments to make. Our comments in our response letter dated 12 January 2021 are still valid..
  
We trust the above advice is useful.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
 
Yours sincerely
 

 
Mrs Frances Edwards
Sustainable Places Planning Advisor
 
Direct e-mail Frances.edwards@environment-agency.gov.uk
SP Team e-mail: sp-yorkshire@environment-agency.gov.uk

cc Gateley Manchester LLP

Another document on the Newmarket Development added today. Thankfully, another none objection.
After listening to MC last night, he mentioned JM would hopefully, make a announcement re stadium in the next week or so. I think that would take us beyond the next planning meeting Nov 18th, therefore it’s reasonable to think the 2 relevant applications will not be heard this month. Disappointed.

Mr Michael Eaglestoneg
City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Planning Services
Newton Bar
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2TX






Our ref: RA/2020/142551/02-L01
Your ref: 20/02249/FUL

Date: 21 October 2021



Dear Mr Eaglestone

Proposal: FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES (29,417 SQ. M, 5,083 SQ. M AND 4,700 SQ M.) (USE CLASS Bicon_cool.gif TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY OFFICES, LORRY AND CAR PARKING, HARD-STANDING, YARD, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND A NEW PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTE FROM THE B6135 TO THE TRANS PENNINE TRAIL.
 
Location: PLOT 8 LAND SOUTH OF NEWMARKET LANE STANLEY WAKEFIELD WF3 4BU

Thank you for your consultation regarding the above proposal which was received on 1 October 2021.
 
We have reviewed the updated information submitted with the application and we have no further comments to make. Our comments in our response letter dated 12 January 2021 are still valid..
  
We trust the above advice is useful.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
 
Yours sincerely
 

 
Mrs Frances Edwards
Sustainable Places Planning Advisor
 
Direct e-mail Frances.edwards@environment-agency.gov.uk
SP Team e-mail: sp-yorkshire@environment-agency.gov.uk

cc Gateley Manchester LLP

I think your own diligent reporting tells us what's happening here and to me, it's positive in a way.

It's complex and a lot of third parties are involved and it's these people delaying the issue, probably not deliberately. To me it demonstrates all involved are serious, dotting the i's etc.

I'd rather wait a few weeks and get both through the first time. In truth should BV and Plot 8 get full planning permission the first time then it shouldn't delay the far more critical phase 2. If all is above board then it's in everyone's interest to get the monies sorted and the build started as soon as possible, probably early in the new year

I think your own diligent reporting tells us what's happening here and to me, it's positive in a way.

It's complex and a lot of third parties are involved and it's these people delaying the issue, probably not deliberately. To me it demonstrates all involved are serious, dotting the i's etc.

I'd rather wait a few weeks and get both through the first time. In truth should BV and Plot 8 get full planning permission the first time then it shouldn't delay the far more critical phase 2. If all is above board then it's in everyone's interest to get the monies sorted and the build started as soon as possible, probably early in the new year