What about the five lakes development between Wakefield & Featherstone, surely the creation of hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat can be taken into account.

same goes for pugneys and also lofthouse colliery old site, there are loads more green and outdoor spaces now than there ever were in wakefield when i was growing up here

Stanley Marsh aswell loads of nature reserves in Wakefield we're just short of a decent stadium and jobs. Until the newmarket project gets the green light that is.

add Nostell colliery site where I worked now turned into a nature wood land walk area,
if we continue turning every disused work area back to nature we will end up back in the caves

Ant the old Rothwell pit site, and neighbouring wetlands over the canal, not strictly Wakefield but very close to site.

It seems the flyers objecting to the development have created a response. although the supporting comments hold up well against them. I imagine a lot more will come through in the next week or so. After all people like nothing other then a good moan about something if given the opportunity.

Latest figures can be found by visiting the [url=http://www.swag-online.co.uk/SWAG[/url website or by clicking the link in my sig.

My parents were shown this flyer yesterday morning in Stanley by someone who received it through her door on Pinders Heath - she was apparently most alarmed and trying to drum up support because of the traffic and ambulances getting to Pinderfields



Obviously she got short shrift from my Mum & Dad

All coming from Methley.

They are Leeds for god's sake, can someone clear this up for me, how much sway do they hold being outside of our constituency?

No idea but if, as most suspect, it gets referred to the regional planning office due to the green belt factor then it wouldn’t matter if they reside in Leeds.

As I expected the scaremongering tactics have been used to full effect.

Just had look at Methley on google maps to get an idea of the distance and surrounding location. And there are 3 blinding points which struck me straight away.

1. The location is the other side of the motorway. So it's neither directly in sight, nor on their back door. Plus you would expect a little thing called the motorway to drown out much of the noise.

2. How much open, green space is there on THEIR side of the motorway!!! There's loads!! They have farming land right up to the motorway and lakes on the other side.

3. How far it is away from the proposed ground. They have fears of being over ridden with cars on match days, if i were going to park on the street (not that you would because its clear you WILL be clamped) i would do it a hell of a lot CLOSER to the stadium. The only time i can see for there being a lot of traffic on the Methley road would be when we have Cas over, and that would be due to Cas fans coming from home in... Methley, all the other Cas fans who drive would go on the motorway to nip home rather than fight to get out that way!

Common sense goes a long way, i just hope the council listen to us, the rent paying residents, not a bunch of nimbys.

The current Wakefield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was agreed in 2003 and for those not aware, they have to review the UDP every ten years. As such, the current Wakefield MDC UDP is due for renewal in 2013. The process take quite a bit of time, so I expect them to start the process in the next 12 to 18 months, if not sooner.

There is no way, in my opinion, that the planners would continue to want to designate this current area of brown-field land as being worthy of Green Belt status in the next UDP. If you take a look at the satellite images of the M62 and M1 corridors in the district you will see that the majority of the currently designated commercial space at J41 M1, J31 M62 is pretty much full. We have to accept that, as a city, we have to exploit our location close to what is now a major motorway cross-roads and good national rail links. Many of the companies that are basing head-offices/northern offices in Leeds also need and want good commercial and distribution space close by. We have to face facts, Wakefield is a distribution city and one of the best things we have done as a district is to exploit our location and labour force to service this need.

A friend at the highways agency has told me that in capacity terms J30 of the M62 is well below capacity and certainly one of the lowest on the whole of the M62 for its good location. The current improvements for a variable speed limit and peak hard-shoulder lane use, starting at J30, means the location becomes ever more ideal.

I think if this does get called in by the secretary of states office (the only real chance the current objectors have IMO), this is the valid argument that I am sure will be used to justify granting the planning permission. This is a NIMBY objection being orchestrated by someone who is clearly objecting for this reason and this reason alone. They are trying to speak to the 'Daily Mail' Readers of the district and I am sure it will get some support BUT... they don't have anything of any real substance. As pointed, out the majority of their 'argument' does not stand to even the simplest of scrutiny and they know that, but you can't blame them for giving it a try. In an ideal world we would not have to build these places close to anybody's house or home, but we simply don't have the room and they have to be built, to create jobs and prosperity for the district. It is like mobile phone masts, no-body wants one close to their home, but they all want a mobile phone and get upset when they don't get a good signal. Well folks, they have to go somewhere and some people will be upset.

You can't object to something, under our planning system, simply because you don't want it near you!

Also, for the SWAG guys, are you aware that a number of people (usually about 3 to 4 per side) have the right to speak in support/opposition of the planning application, (by application in advance) at the planning committee itself? Now the developer, I am sure, will want one of those slots for himself and I also suspect that someone from the Community Sport Foundation/Wakefield Trinity will also want to speak. However, I think that both the developer and Trinity would welcome a couple of people/supporters to speak in support of the application. If they are local to the development, even better. I would get in touch with them and coordinate your efforts. The planning committee do like 'ordinary' people to speak at the meetings and if this has been coordinated with the 'official parties' they tend to give this weight. You can bet that Mr & Mrs Botox will have applied and be allowed to speak.

Have said this all alone as someone who lives in Methley......by all accounts they have been distributing leaflets, but l, nor a friend that lives in Rothwell have got one.

Don’t think 'they' are anything to really worry about!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge about these things with us I_A ... your posts are always informative and helpful.

I think you just put yourself forward.
This seems to be spinning more and more into a debate/town meeting you see on The Simpsons. And to be fair I'm more "the nut with the dynamite strapped to him" if were descending into that.

To be fair i can see the pro's and the negatives, i just think I'm a little down on the scheme because it's half term, i have marking to do, and subsequently I'm procrastinating by searching through the planning docs.

So lets get things clear.

They can't see it. Because of the motorway.
They can't hear it. Because of the motorway.

So they can neither see it nor hear it, how do they know it's actually there?
Sort of reminds me of the ancient Chinese rhyme "If a tree falls in the woods"

"If a stadium was built on Newmarket does it make a sound in Methley?"

12 more letters of objection coming in from Methley today.
Have our letters all but stopped now?

Tbh I can honestly see this project being sunk or at the very least being called in by the residents of Methley. Either way we're out of SL.

(a very, very downbeat SWC)

Was always likely to get called in!!

Calm down.

The standard issue council letter sent to you when they have received your comments advises that the decision will be purely based on planning issues and it doesn't follow that a lot of objections will lead to the plans getting rejected and vice versa.

The real ones to take notice of are the statutory responses. The only bad one is the West Yorkshire Ecologists report which Natural England has provided resolutions to the objections.

As I have explained before the application will automatically be called in by Government Office. What is required is that it is then passed back to the Council for determination rather than being referred to a Public Enquiry.

It does not matter how many letter of objection are received provided the reasons for the objections are considered and addressed. I recall that the main reasons for objections were drainage issues, loss of green belt, traffic and noise.

All these issues have been addressed by YorkCourt in the Traffic Impact Assesssment, Flood Impact Studies, Noise Studies and the Environment Impact Assessment. If these issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Council then there is no reason why the objections will have any impact.

Natural England are not objecting so my main area of concern, loss of habitats have been addressed.

I woulkd not be too concened by the objections provided YorkCourt are on the case which I'm sure they will be, however it wont hurt if letters of support are received. I would urge anyone who has not submitted a positive comment to do so.

Might be a good idea to try and drum up support from fellow RL fans! I'm sure they'd all support a new stadium to take their families too. Might be worth commenting on tourism and money it would bring to Wakefield.

theirs a letter in the y.e p today. it is the main letter with the headline DEVELOPERS PUT GREEN LUNG IN PERIL! it is from a Woodlesford resident complaining about loss of greenbelt between wakey and leeds, extra traffic including delays to pinderfields!? it also encourages readers to view maps on the CCG website and send protest letters before the april 8th deadline. i think its time the club,fans and developers step up our charm offensive. the future of our club is at stake and we cannot allow these nimbies to end 135 years of a precious institution.

Go on then mate,be my guest.

apologies,just seen the other thread

these objectors drive me mad though!

Got a leafet today from one of the distributors, they ain't happy delivering em.