As Al says - we want you to contact YOUR councillor. They all sit on the council and several of them are on the planning committee as well.

Be passionate and emotional - say what the club means to you personally!

Sent mine off 10 days ago and got responses a few days later.Two of the Councillors, Ros Lund and Olivia Rowley e-mailed me back both saying they were not a member of the planning committee and will therefore not be part of the decision making process. Olivia Rowley said in her short reply that she would send my e-mail to the Chief Planning Officer.So after my passionate plea to them for their support for Newmarket,they seemed to somewhat have passed the book and completely missed the point of the e-mail,they didn't even have the decency to tell me their opinion or whether they support it.

Olivia rowley sent my dad a one sentence reply saying she wasn't involved in the decision making. Seemed quite rude and not interested. Same with lund. Don't think any of them care. However councillor hudson sent me a reply saying that although he wasn't on the comittee, he would do everything he could to support it.

Olivia Rowley isn't exactly Trinity's best friend. Although if she's still the ward councillor for Belle Vue and Agbrigg then i'm surprised she's not delighted at the thought of Wakefield moving out.

Yes she still is the Councillor for Belle Vue, but unfortunately her area runs right over to Pinders Heath.

11 days and still no respose from any of mine!

E-mailed all 3 but only David Hopkins has replied but as he is on the planning committee he is unable to comment which I can understand. No response from the other 2 and its been well over a week but they may be on holidays so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I Emailed the 3 Wrenthorpe councillors a week ago just got a reply off Betty Liles saying she supported the project due to the employment it was providing the other 2 haven't replied.

She hasn't replied to me!!!

One thing is becoming clear and that is that the Conservative Group in Wakefield Council are clearly in support of the development (Betty is a Tory), along with many of the ruling Labour councillors. I think this continues to bode well for the scheme as a whole. As time goes on I am really struggling to see the current Coalition Government calling this in for a public enquiry, both for the cost of a public enquiry, which is reasonably large, and also turning down a private developer who wishes to develop this land and bring many jobs to the area. That all said, it is only a hunch and second guessing politicians in general is never easy!

is there something going in the pont and cas express on thursday about ground sharing at newmarket, thats what ive just been told off a cas fan whos now a bit worried

Not to my knowledge.

We are 'going it alone' - as Cas did not take up our offer at an earlier stage.

thats fine then he said hed read it and an announcement was coming.

It could just be someone winding someone up.

I doubt Cas will change horses now, especially with Boxy doing his bit over the blast zone (although I'm not sure the HSE are convinced totally yet?)

Not had a reply from my 3 councillors yet.

I wouldn't worry, two of my councillers haven't replied as they're on the commitee and another forwarded the email. It doesn't mean they're not interested

The HSE also wrote a letter in the comments section of the paper stating that they are the advisory body and the power to remove it actually lies with Wakefield Council.

OK - that's an update from the last I was told.

You are in the clear then!

Quote ="TRB"OK - that's an update from the last I was told. You are in the clear then!'" Edit - it also says it at the bottom of that P and C article too. Quote "A HSE spokesman confirmed that the agency was acting in an advisory role to the council in respect of Hazardous Substances Consent, but could not comment further without details of specific planning applications."'" www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... _1_1607838

Quote ="TRB"OK - that's an update from the last I was told. You are in the clear then!'" Edit - it also says it at the bottom of that P and C article too. Quote "A HSE spokesman confirmed that the agency was acting in an advisory role to the council in respect of Hazardous Substances Consent, but could not comment further without details of specific planning applications."'" www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... _1_1607838

The NIMBY's have been out in force over the last week.
Having skimmed the vast majority it's clear they are on the whole generic letters; with 3 or more sometimes coming from the same address, mostly LS residents too.

While they continue to drown on with the same floored arguments, which we all know to be against reason & council policy. Still I do find it concerning leading up to the 22nd.

Is anyone from Yorkcourt going to be on the panel for next Tuesdays meeting?

Don't be overly concerned this is just them trying to make objection look widespread, as has always been their tactic. They are targeting the 'Daily Mail' reader types (for want of a better generalisation description) and unfortunately, IMO, abusing their trust by telling them mostly lies which they are taking as being true and factual. They have targeted the affluent areas surround the site (I am not going to use the term 'close' because they aren't!) outside of Wakefield in particular, so Methley, Woodlesford etc. Methley works well for them as many are also Cas supporters and that is helping them out.

The good news is that generic or letters that 'appear', in the eyes of the planning officer, to be reasonably similar only count as one objection full stop! So all this, there has been over 750 objections is actually rubbish in the eyes of planning, and I think they might struggle to get more than a couple of hundred, or even less, unique objections. That all said the number of objections is just a figure that goes in the report, the number does not actual matter in relation to the guidelines. If the majority of the objections are without foundation or detail in respect of the guidelines and are 'NIMBY' then it makes no difference. We know that things like traffic, flooding and drainage that they keep raising as issues have mostly been dealt with and any items that are still require further work will be covered by conditions in the planning officers report.

The Greenbelt issue, as I have said all along, is the only valid objection point being consistently raised and we know that Yorkcourt and others have done their best into justifying the application in relation to permitted development guidelines within Greenbelt... so they can do no more.

We are as sure as we can be that the planning officers report to the committee will indeed recommend that they are minded to approve the application, with I am sure still quite a long list of conditions, so at least the planning professional local civil servants are convinced of the case raised for the permitting of the development on Greenbelt, so lets just see!

I very much hope so. Do you think the report will be pinned to the applications documents or be on a separate part of the WMDC site when it's published? I would imagine it will be front page news as soon as it breaks, either way.

Thank you for a very detailed post (that put much of my concerns to bed) as well as your continued support and guidance.

Not a bad lad for a Rhino....

Thanks, we are quite nice some of us Rhinos... honest!



The report will be issued on the WMDC website here about 7 days before the meeting on the 22nd - [urlhttp://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=308&J=1[/url

You can have a look at some the previous ones to get a flavour of what the document will look like if you like. It will be very, very long I suspect, but as long at ends with the statement that the planning officers recommend to the committee that they be minded to approve the application, we will be happy!

Indeed we will.
TBF it's only right and proper that all eventualities are thought through, nobody has ever discounted the real concerns of local residents, we all empathise to a great degree. IMO this has development been designed to be as minimally intrusive as possible.
I'm sure if people actually got to grips with the plans they would realise many of their concerns (traffic, drainage, noise ect) have been understood and incorporated.
If any ruling is based on fact and planning there will only ever be one outcome.

Same as the SWAG petition.