|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="bigalf"Sorry I_A but You are wrong.
I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for [uinformation only [/uto show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine).
The Cas Tigers Ground [uhas[/u been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right  ) it is very confusing.
Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?
I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment.
If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation?
Quote Relates to N101. Justifiable - =#FF0000Given the downturn in the market, and the inextricable link between this site (N101) and the delivery of the new Castleford Tigers stadium, it must be recognised that other alternative land uses may be more appropriate on this site to deliver the capital receipt required. Continued reliance on the housing market to deliver the capital receipt in the short term is unjustified.
Deliverable – PPS12 requires that partners who are essential to the delivery of the plan such as landowners and developers should be signed up to the proposal. In the current economic climate it is clear that there are doubts as to the deliverability of the site for residential development, given the reduction in capital value this would result in. Consequently, the site may not be viable within the current market (1-2 years), but may be deliverable in the following years (3-5) and beyond, as a housing site.
Flexible – National Planning Policy advocates that Local Planning Authorities are flexible both in terms of Core Strategy Policies, and related DPD’s, and in relation to the delivery of housing sites.
=#FF0000Proposal SPA N9 does offer flexibility in terms of the generic wording of the proposal as detailed in section 1. However, the text refers explicitly to the Wheldon Road site in the following terms: “Development of…nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the…Castleford tigers ground are included in the Castleford Riverside SPA”. Although the proposal offers generic flexibility this implies that the site is allocated for residential development, and the overarching policy flexibility contained in Proposal SPA N9 does not apply to the site.
=#FF0000In conclusion, the following representations are made: Support for the generic flexibility in proposal SPA N9; Support for the identification of site N101 for residential use; but Object to the specific identification of the site for residential purposes without the benefit of the generic flexibility that proposal SPA N9 provides.
On the basis of the above analysis and context the following changes in CAPITALS are recommended to be made to SPA N9:
1. End of 1st paragraph: This area, and in particular the former colliery sites and chemicals plant, is ideally suited to mixed use development, including the provision of public open space, local leisure facilities, and both residential and industrial/commercial development opportunities; =#FF0000THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES MAY, HOWEVER, CHANGE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD AS THE AREA IS COMPREHENSIVELY REDEVLOPED.
2. Amendment to 6th bullet point: Provision of employment opportunities to replace jobs lost through closures of collieries and chemical plant =#FF0000THROUGH ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
3. Amendment to 5th paragraph: Development of the C6 Solution site for mixed use but predominantly employment uses including an energy village and housing, THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND FOR USES APPROPRIATE TO FACILITATE DELIVERY OF A NEW STADIUM, and nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the Arriva bus depot, AND the Nestle site (DELETE THIS NEXT BIT: “AND THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND”) are included in the Castleford Riverside Special Policy Area.'"
There are some key bits in red that I think are important!
I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case.
Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple!
I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all.
I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9."
As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it! |
|
Quote ="bigalf"Sorry I_A but You are wrong.
I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for [uinformation only [/uto show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine).
The Cas Tigers Ground [uhas[/u been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations.
Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have.
I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right ) it is very confusing.
Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?
I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment.
If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation?
Quote Relates to N101. Justifiable - =#FF0000Given the downturn in the market, and the inextricable link between this site (N101) and the delivery of the new Castleford Tigers stadium, it must be recognised that other alternative land uses may be more appropriate on this site to deliver the capital receipt required. Continued reliance on the housing market to deliver the capital receipt in the short term is unjustified.
Deliverable – PPS12 requires that partners who are essential to the delivery of the plan such as landowners and developers should be signed up to the proposal. In the current economic climate it is clear that there are doubts as to the deliverability of the site for residential development, given the reduction in capital value this would result in. Consequently, the site may not be viable within the current market (1-2 years), but may be deliverable in the following years (3-5) and beyond, as a housing site.
Flexible – National Planning Policy advocates that Local Planning Authorities are flexible both in terms of Core Strategy Policies, and related DPD’s, and in relation to the delivery of housing sites.
=#FF0000Proposal SPA N9 does offer flexibility in terms of the generic wording of the proposal as detailed in section 1. However, the text refers explicitly to the Wheldon Road site in the following terms: “Development of…nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the…Castleford tigers ground are included in the Castleford Riverside SPA”. Although the proposal offers generic flexibility this implies that the site is allocated for residential development, and the overarching policy flexibility contained in Proposal SPA N9 does not apply to the site.
=#FF0000In conclusion, the following representations are made: Support for the generic flexibility in proposal SPA N9; Support for the identification of site N101 for residential use; but Object to the specific identification of the site for residential purposes without the benefit of the generic flexibility that proposal SPA N9 provides.
On the basis of the above analysis and context the following changes in CAPITALS are recommended to be made to SPA N9:
1. End of 1st paragraph: This area, and in particular the former colliery sites and chemicals plant, is ideally suited to mixed use development, including the provision of public open space, local leisure facilities, and both residential and industrial/commercial development opportunities; =#FF0000THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES MAY, HOWEVER, CHANGE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD AS THE AREA IS COMPREHENSIVELY REDEVLOPED.
2. Amendment to 6th bullet point: Provision of employment opportunities to replace jobs lost through closures of collieries and chemical plant =#FF0000THROUGH ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
3. Amendment to 5th paragraph: Development of the C6 Solution site for mixed use but predominantly employment uses including an energy village and housing, THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND FOR USES APPROPRIATE TO FACILITATE DELIVERY OF A NEW STADIUM, and nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the Arriva bus depot, AND the Nestle site (DELETE THIS NEXT BIT: “AND THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND”) are included in the Castleford Riverside Special Policy Area.'"
There are some key bits in red that I think are important!
I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case.
Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple!
I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all.
I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9."
As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it! | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1430 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2008 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2011 | Dec 2011 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Georgie Best on a Bloomer"If you like. But TLA isn't an acronym!
'"
That is true, is has to be pronounceable as a single word to be strictly an acronym as opposed to an abbreviation... so DOS is and TLA isn't... that is almost as confusing as the LDF... which is not an acronym either... I need to lie down! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1347 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right
) it is very confusing.
Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?
'"
Page 33
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf |
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right
) it is very confusing.
Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please?
'"
Page 33
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Thanks for the link, saved me searching for it.
But that tells me what I told you, that Ben Bailey (and Cas) didn't get their ultimate wish, as of as late as October 2010, (which they must be quite pleased about now to be honest) that this site be recognised as a separate housing site within N9. They rejected this option in favour of the regulatory framework given by an SPA for the whole Riverside area instead... which is what I said!
However, they have to identify within an SPA the sites that hey consider to be most suitable for housing supply and that is done in the housing supply table in the sites document. WR has been allocated for housing and that is what the LDF says!
Now, you are correct, this is not quite as rigid as if it had been allocated as a full separate housing site but the whole of N9 has to be able to provide, within the plan, the total number of houses assigned to it. So if you kick out the houses allocated (can't remember the total number for WR now... was it 104?) you have to plan for them on another site in N9 to meet the total 2.5k target. So if they don't go here, they have to go somewhere else and 2 other large sites in N9 are also arguing is should not be them.
Come on, to say that this site is not currently envisaged to be for housing is disingenuous. The very fact we are able to both debate this and show different bit of evidences in the documents and the fact the Cas and other site providers in N9 are also objecting to the wording of the LDf tells the story here... and why this unfortunately, and I do mean that, will not be resolved for many, many months if not years!
Time for a joint fans keep Cas and Wakey in SL campaign anyone?
|
|
Thanks for the link, saved me searching for it.
But that tells me what I told you, that Ben Bailey (and Cas) didn't get their ultimate wish, as of as late as October 2010, (which they must be quite pleased about now to be honest) that this site be recognised as a separate housing site within N9. They rejected this option in favour of the regulatory framework given by an SPA for the whole Riverside area instead... which is what I said!
However, they have to identify within an SPA the sites that hey consider to be most suitable for housing supply and that is done in the housing supply table in the sites document. WR has been allocated for housing and that is what the LDF says!
Now, you are correct, this is not quite as rigid as if it had been allocated as a full separate housing site but the whole of N9 has to be able to provide, within the plan, the total number of houses assigned to it. So if you kick out the houses allocated (can't remember the total number for WR now... was it 104?) you have to plan for them on another site in N9 to meet the total 2.5k target. So if they don't go here, they have to go somewhere else and 2 other large sites in N9 are also arguing is should not be them.
Come on, to say that this site is not currently envisaged to be for housing is disingenuous. The very fact we are able to both debate this and show different bit of evidences in the documents and the fact the Cas and other site providers in N9 are also objecting to the wording of the LDf tells the story here... and why this unfortunately, and I do mean that, will not be resolved for many, many months if not years!
Time for a joint fans keep Cas and Wakey in SL campaign anyone?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 10025 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2018 | Sep 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"
Time for a joint fans keep Cas and Wakey in SL campaign anyone?'"
What would Cas gain from a joint campaign? Cas clearly have the upper hand IMO. I don't think it's being overly cocky to suggest that, is it?
As things currently stand I can't see a single area where Wakey hold an advantage over Cas.
Going in to administration so close to decision time is what I believe will ultimately cost Wakefield their SL place. Glover can promise Wakey the world on a stick just like millionaire Steve O'Connor did in 2008 for Widnes but I'll be very surprised if they get the nod to remain unless a 15/16 team competition is announced. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kippaxer"What would Cas gain from a joint campaign? Cas clearly have the upper hand IMO. I don't think it's being overly cocky to suggest that, is it?'"
I don't think it is cocky, but could be risky... you both don't know what each have written in their bids (well, you do know one bit of what was written in Wakefield's now... were you expecting that?). What do you actually lose,as fans, if you think your bid is far superior to theirs... nothing as far as I can see, it is a win win for you... isn't it?
What is wrong with saying, we should both stay?
Quote As things currently stand I can't see a single area where Wakey hold an advantage over Cas.'"
You might be right, but you are also wearing amber and black tinted specs... as we all do, that is not a criticism. I understand that Wakefield's community programme is regarded as being one of the best in the whole game, so that might be one area... the rest, genuinely no idea? But that is the gamble that has to be taken!
Quote Going in to administration so close to decision time is what I believe will ultimately cost Wakefield their SL place. Glover can promise Wakey the world on a stick just like millionaire Steve O'Connor did in 2008 for Widnes but I'll be very surprised if they get the nod to remain unless a 15/16 team competition is announced.'"
The Widnes situation was different... they were not already in SL at the time, like you and Wakey were, on merit! At that time it was Widnes v Crusaders that was the battle... I can't seem to recall much in the way of calls to boot you or Wakey out! Kicking out a team, putting people out of work, taking away peoples jobs and livelihoods... bit bigger decision eh?
I don't think the clubs can do this themselves, but the fans is different!
How will you feel if you don't do something and it turns out, your bid was not as strong and you though and you do get kicked out? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 763 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
How can the council plan for a housing development on the Cas ground if that doesn't release the capital needed for Cas to go to Glasshoughton?!?!?
It's a none starter.
Other retail and leisure developments would have to be built around a tatty sports stadium with the obvious parking problems on match days.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1430 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2008 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2011 | Dec 2011 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"That is true, is has to be pronounceable as a single word to be strictly an acronym as opposed to an abbreviation... so DOS is and TLA isn't... that is almost as confusing as the LDF... which is not an acronym either... I need to lie down!
'"
LOL
 |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3807 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
What's the acronym for " Our backup plan is we are going to renovate our current ground that we don't even own?"
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 483 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2010 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Therailwayendisuponus."What's the acronym for " Our backup plan is we are going to renovate our current ground that we don't even own?"'"
Whats Cas' back-up plan because you aren't going to be playing at Glasshoughton in this round of franchises. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 12415 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2014 | Jun 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="sixtogo"Whats Cas' back-up plan because you aren't going to be playing at Glasshoughton in this round of franchises.'"
No we're not - that would imply being there before the end of this season.  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 483 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2010 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Ok, my bad. You won't be playing at GH in the NEXT round of franchises. Maybe the last year if your very lucky but I promise you, the whole planning saga will drag on and on.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3977 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2021 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="sixtogo"Ok, my bad. You won't be playing at GH in the NEXT round of franchises. Maybe the last year if your very lucky but I promise you, the whole planning saga will drag on and on.'"
If we dont get a stadium in the next 3 years then the 2015 franchise wont be given to us, simple as. Imo
Infact i still feel very nervous about this franchise. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 12415 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2014 | Jun 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="sixtogo"Ok, my bad. You won't be playing at GH in the NEXT round of franchises. Maybe the last year if your very lucky but I promise you, the whole planning saga will drag on and on.'"
Well the official line from the club is 2013 and regardless of your 'promise', you don't offer any kind of evidence to back it up. Would you, perhaps, be a Wakefield fan? 
Quote ="poppys mum"Infact i still feel very nervous about this franchise.'"
Me too. Just some nagging thought that an awful lot of things seem to be happening where the outcome reflects poorly on the club. i.e. The kit fiasco; some questionable refereeing performances when we were flying high; etc... |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="mrpurfect"How can the council plan for a housing development on the Cas ground if that doesn't release the capital needed for Cas to go to Glasshoughton?!?!?
It's a none starter.
Other retail and leisure developments would have to be built around a tatty sports stadium with the obvious parking problems on match days.'"
Good point but this might put it in a different light and answer your question! Before the global financial crisis then Ben Bailey had a rumoured £6m + option on WR. That was almost enough, it would seem, to allow Cas to move to GH with some support from the £2m from WMDC, £1m from Waystone (spent already) etc. Great!
Now the land is only worth half of that because housing land prices are in the toilet, however, commercial land prices, especially for retail, remain good, hence the switch to Tesco. Cas are the ones in a rush and not (on SPA N9) WMDC! The council have planned in the LDF for 2525 houses to be built in N9 by 2022, only 226 of which are planned for prior to 2016/17, the other 2199 are to built from 2016/17 onwards! On the WR site, the council have planned for 105 houses, of which 21 are planned by 2016/17 and the other 84 after. Now, of course that does look odd why only 21, if Ben Bailey had still been able to buy the site they would have built all 105 houses quicker than that.. yes, but what they do is split the requirement down to all the sites in N9 to represent the overall statistical position that the N9 site has to provide prior to 2016/17. So, if another site goes and provides more house than required, this and other sites don't have to provide them. So, the answer is that the council don't really have a need for this site to be released prior to 2017 for housing. By which time housing land values should have risen sufficiently again and Cas would get a better return on the sale.
So, that is how they can plan for housing... the don't need it happen, for the plan, for another 5 years! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Bonzo"Well the official line from the club is 2013 and regardless of your 'promise', you don't offer any kind of evidence to back it up. Would you, perhaps, be a Wakefield fan?
Me too. Just some nagging thought that an awful lot of things seem to be happening where the outcome reflects poorly on the club. i.e. The kit fiasco; some questionable refereeing performances when we were flying high; etc...'"
Despite what the 'official line' is from the club, the best both Cas and Wakey can reasonably expect is to be in new grounds in the start of 2014. They could both possibly finish towards to the middle/back-end of the 2013 season, so maybe if one or both were looking good for a play-off spot, that might be a good time to move in early maybe? Otherwise, I don't see the point of getting in a few months earlier.
I will give you an evidential path shall I! Despite what the clubs official line is, is differs from the proposed time-frame given to the various consultants by Opus is! Opus have to them to work to planning being submitted in October 2011 and they are going to push for a decision by February/March 2012 at the earliest! I think that is ambitious but lets say they get there. I think they would look to be starting on site at GH (not WR) within 2/3 months of planning being granted (despite this, starting as soon as permission is granted, you won't get anyone on site in less than a 12 week lead-in) . So that sees them on site by mid-summer 2012, with a 50+ week programme that see them finishing a year later. So, yes 2013, but half way through it at best. So, might be worth moving in before the play-off's but if not, better starting a new season at a new home?
Now, of course, this assumes that everything goes to plan! Interestingly, the time-frame issued to the Opus team is flagging up the possibility of an appeal.... or, you guessed it a PI! They have said six months for this, which again is slightly ambitious but possible.
Does that stack-up do you think? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 112 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2007 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2019 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Apart from the fact that detailed planning application is due for August 2011.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Hatfield tiger"Apart from the fact that detailed planning application is due for August 2011.'"
Quote Despite what the clubs official line is, is differs from the proposed time-frame given to the various consultants by Opus! Opus have asked them to work to planning being submitted in October 2011 and they are going to push for a decision by February/March 2012.'" |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 112 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2007 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2019 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Simply quoting publically available information rather than saying "he said - she said" or divulging information from a source that other people cant chalenge.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4473 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Jun 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I do wish IA would jog on, like a broken record.
I don't think I've ever read a rugby related post by him.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Hatfield tiger"Simply quoting publically available information rather than saying "he said - she said" or divulging information from a source that other people cant chalenge.'"
I am simply posting information that has been given to me from a credible source. The Opus time scale sent to the consultants working on the scheme says October, sorry!
I might even have a draft site proposal plan... but because I can't send it you, you can't verify that either! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5793 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2014 | May 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Despite what the 'official line' is from the club, the best both Cas and Wakey can reasonably expect is to be in new grounds in the start of 2014. They could both possibly finish towards to the middle/back-end of the 2013 season, so maybe if one or both were looking good for a play-off spot, that might be a good time to move in early maybe? Otherwise, I don't see the point of getting in a few months earlier.
I will give you an evidential path shall I! Despite what the clubs official line is, is differs from the proposed time-frame given to the various consultants by Opus is! Opus have to them to work to planning being submitted in October 2011 and they are going to push for a decision by February/March 2012 at the earliest! I think that is ambitious but lets say they get there. I think they would look to be starting on site at GH (not WR) within 2/3 months of planning being granted (despite this, starting as soon as permission is granted, you won't get anyone on site in less than a 12 week lead-in) . So that sees them on site by mid-summer 2012, with a 50+ week programme that see them finishing a year later. So, yes 2013, but half way through it at best. So, might be worth moving in before the play-off's but if not, better starting a new season at a new home?
Now, of course, this assumes that everything goes to plan! Interestingly, the time-frame issued to the Opus team is flagging up the possibility of an appeal.... or, you guessed it a PI! They have said six months for this, which again is slightly ambitious but possible.
Does that stack-up do you think?'"
You keep talking as if we all believe everything you have to say, you have told us some tale which just happens to suit your agenda, you have not provided any evidence about what took place in this meeting.
Now go on give us some long winded reply about how you want cas to have a stadium just as much as wakey, then go back to the wakey board and tell them all how everything is going well for them and that all the best possible timescales will be achieved for them (like you told them they wouldn't go to PI) and then come back on here and tell us everything will go wrong for us and say we should be campaigning hard to keep wakefield in sl (strange you dont seem to be encouraging them to support castlefords franchise bid like you keep telling us we should do for them).
If if it is a choice between listening to the club or listening to you i think i will listen to the club thanks.
If it were upto me we would we would both be in sl but it is going to come down one of us going down and nothing short of the welsh going bust is going to change that. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5793 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2014 | May 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I am simply posting information that has been given to me from a credible source. The Opus time scale sent to the consultants working on the scheme says October, sorry!
I might even have a draft site proposal plan... but because I can't send it you, you can't verify that either!'"
and you might have 7 legs and 23 eyes.
If your going to say you know better than people who are actually involved in this prove it or as has been said jog on. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 4320 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2013 | Nov 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) it is very confusing.
