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.

Yes it does, but that has the support of over 15,000 residents opposed to the generic letters which hold the support of 200 people at best.

That's before you consider the amount of "non-generic" letters received. I think it's pretty obvious who win's that one too.

Nice try though mate.

Errr, no, not really the same at all!

The SWAG petition was to petition Wakefield MDC and was therefore a political petition. I am sure that TRB will agree it was meant to do nothing more than to highlight to the members of Wakefield MDC how many people 'support' the principal of a new ground for Wakefield at Newmarket. That is what all petitions are really for, to be honest. Many of the same people who signed that petition will have written letters of support as part of the formal planning process I suspect. The only time I have seen TRB and other members of SWAG come back with the 15,000 + people supporting a new ground at Newmarket is in defending the argument used against them that the total number of planning objection highlight that more people object to the ground than want it. I don't think anyone has used the petition to claim that there are effectively 15,000 + unique letters of support to the planning process at any stage.

I think you might find that once the total number of unique formal letters of support are added up (as most of these types of letters, by there very nature, are unique) versus the number of unique formal objection letters that the gap between the two is smaller than you might think... if of course planning indeed was a measuring contest... which it isn't!

In line with AI's previous statements regarding NM a new spatial policy review has been added today.
Like AI said they still cite a few issues but in now way object- especially in relation to the issue of Green belt this is very good news. The only issue they state as concerning that matches NIMBY arguments is waste water- an issue which is fundamental and must be resolved with the submission of the final application.

The report does signal that additional information is required, but that in essence is the point of an outline application.
This will be another key document for the report to draw upon, so fingers crossed for positive news next Friday with it's publication. We will all be able to sleep a lot easier knowing the report recommends the approval of the application.

Just a quick question AI;

If the NIMBY's lost at the outline stages could they contest their objections at the final stage using the same/similar points of objection? Or does OPP set a precedent in terms of points the raised being valid or not?

Firstly TRB has added the petition to the Planning portal. And secondly I have no idea what the gap between the two is. oh and who started with the measuring contest errrm oh yeah it was you. While I have you attention, you come on here making out your some prophet of wisdom, when all you have done is repeated what is already out in the public domain, oh yeah and this thread is a classic I bet nobody had thought of writing to their councillors.

Hi all,

Can I ask what the position is regarding the ecological concerns that were recently posted, have they been addressed now ?

All the best on the 22nd and hope that both clubs can move forward with the stadia and secure bright futures.

A new wild flower meadow has replaced the proposed office units.
Several new ponds have been added to house surface water overflow and relocate existing wetland amphibious creators to.
The existence of a present Otter population is unproven and it is highly likely if the population does exist they have adequate areas to relocate to down river. It may very well be the case that the inclusion of the wild flower meadow would increase wildlife populations on the site in the long run.

IMO the site will be much improved in all aspects.

If you mean he has written to WMDC and then they have added this as supporting information on the planning portal, well yes, he has 'added it'... I would have done if I had 15,000 people who had signed a petition, wouldn't you!!! What is your point? He and the petition are not claiming that 15,000 support the planning application, it is what it is, 15,000 people who support the principal of a new stadium on the Newmarket site and it has been submitted as supporting evidence. If the key residents leading the objection campaign had a 15,000 petition of people not wanting something built on the land they would equally have submitted it... given the nature of the campaigning by some of them so far!

You are right, I have no idea either what you think either, it was just a slightly badly constructed rhetorical statement. My opinion is that it will not be a massive gap, you have not told me your opinion, but please do if you would like?

I would very distressed if any key procedure, such as the planning process, of a democratic governed nation was not in the public domain otherwise it would be highly contradictory and not really a democracy now would it! Again, what is your point? When people ask questions I use my 20 years experience of working within the construction industry and my first hand knowledge of the planning process to endeavour to answer those questions where possible. When sometimes I am unsure I say so, don't answer at all, or look things up (isn't Google just bloody great!) and then answer. I don't claim to be anything other than exactly what I am! I am not a planning consultant or professional but the nature of my involvement within the industry has given me a level of knowledge that I am happy to share with people who post on here... I did think that this was sort of the idea of these forums? If I am wrong I can only apologise!

If you don't like this thread, you don't have to post on it, once again it is what it is... you might think I am stating the obvious, others don't and may find it a useful prompt and this thread is supposed to be nothing more than that. You are entitled to your opinion, and mine and other people theirs, funny that know body else agreed with you about this thread so far, but that is your opinion! I assume therefore that you found the flyers sent out and commercial distributed by Wakefield CCG and W.A.R. to also be 'stating the bleeding obvious' by asking people to write the planning office, their councillors and local MP? In fact the standard objection letters and e-mails that currently make up a large proportion of the objections uploaded on the planning portal must really get your goat eh... some people don't only have to be told who to write to, just in case that is too hard, why not use this example we made earlier... saves you all the hassle and time of forming your own opinion, just use the one I have for you! Genius!

Finally talking of opinions, when I am commenting on issues I do generally state if something is my opinion by using phrases such as, in my opinion or, my experience previously has been etc. You should try it! After all, the thing is, the reason that I am behind this application and development is that I have formed my own opinion, ok much of that comes from experience as well, but you can't hold that against me. I don't have any other agenda, I don't support Wakefield Trinity but I do watch RL and therefore support the sport as a whole, I don't have any commercial interests in the project (and doubt I will have, but if I ultimatley do have opportunities within the development, it will be after this application has been granted), I am just a local resident who is standing up for what he beleives in, I am pro-development generally (I choose to work in the Construction for gods sake!) but I also work in a sector of the industry that champions green, environmentally friendl,y sustainable and fully traceable construction practises.

Are you feeling a little nervous BTW, you seem to be?

Sorry, and who are you again?

I don't know why you bother getting into it with him/her, they don't give a monkeys about Rugby League or Wakefield.

The council are apparently not planning on any capital spend on sports facilities in the next five years or so, so this scheme is ideal for them, in more ways than one.

Excellent point Catwoman1,that seems to have been overlooked by some.

Can you imagine approaching Sport England for a grant for insulating pensioners lofts.