That should be known in February

.....ta !!

So now this is over does anyone know how its gone? Are we confident?

Nothing has changed - our tagline remains 'confident but not complacent'!

We can't see anything that has come out that would disrupt the current proposals put forward by the council in respect of Newmarket. This in turn should pave the way for the planning application to be passed.

LDF result - possibly Feb.
PI result - April - we think!

HTH.

Once passed (

) by the Secretary of State, is there an appeals process that the various anti groups can invoke that could further delay proceedings, or his his verdict final and binding?

Not sure about any specific appeals process, but most decisions by public bodies can be subject to judicial review, which is why it was important that the process heard from every party, so that there can be no allegation of unfairness or that the decision had already been made.

The things is such judicial processes don't come cheap and can attract adverse costs decisions, which will probably rule out local protestors. Perhaps Leeds CC is the biggest risk, but they may think that they have spent enough (or, rather, that the public think that they have spent enough). Will there be any cash left in the coffers at the end of the financial year to pay for it?

I may be wrong but I thought the decisiopn of the SoS after a PI is final and is not subject to any appeal. Equally i did not think you could ask fora Judicial Review on a decision that has beebn the subject of a PI.

You might well be right. I was just speaking generally, and your knowledge in this area is much greater than mine (in fact, most of what I know came from you).

Hi everyone

Sorry for not posting sooner, but I have had a busy week trying to do some real fee paying work in between my "pro bono" work on Newmarket!

Firstly, I think I have confused thing a little and got site names mixed up because Matthew Sheppard was down to represent DeVillers Developments (and GMI) on Trinity Farm and the Holywell Farm sites but the site that was heavily promoted as an alternative site to Newmarket was Holywell Farm at J32 which is this site - [urlhttp://g.co/maps/z4rdk[/url

All these sites BTW are greenbelt, as are the majority of the 43 other sites that WMDC looked at for the B8 allocation. The sites short-listed from that initial 43 was around 11, as they did not meet the criteria laid down in the core strategy, the biggest one being that this additional B8 had to be located on the M62 corridor, and ALL of the sites short listed are greenbelt!

This is a point I have been making since I got involved in supporting Newmarket and something many of the small handful of vocal detractors who post on this and other forums, have been unable or unwilling to grasp. The inspector confirmed at the examination that she was satisfied that the only way to meet the required allocation was to remove land from the greenbelt and although we all really knew this, the fact that she chose to state that at the examination, and not stay quiet on this until her report is issued, is a major vindication of WMDC LDF site selection process.

The Holywell farm site was being forcefully (possibly too forcefully at times) promoted by Matthew Sheppard for the B8 allocation initially, instead of Newmarket, but he also kept his options open and was pushing the inspector to take more land out of greenbelt now, even if it was not allocated for specific B8 development in the LDF, probably because he knows that the Holywell site proposal was not as robust as Newmarket! Interesting tactic! It was clear that Matthew's primary objective was to serve his landowner and developer client and to try and get this site allocated either by replacing Newmarket or if not, as well as Newmarket, then finally just getting the site taken out of greenbelt now for future possible development in maybe 10 years or more time. He was not there to do anything other than represent his clients to the best of his ability.

The council were asked by the inspector to state the reasons that Holywell Farm was rejected and therefore the reason Newmarket was selected. They very confidently put forward there reasons for rejecting this site. The access is an issue because there is limited capacity on J32 and WMDC stated that this is the reason they had already also insisted that the proposed new Castleford Tigers stadium at GH would have to have a new link road constructed as part of the planning conditions. The land is mainly agricultural and of a higher grade generally than the small area of agricultural land being used at Newmarket. It also has poor topography and no natural shielding cover from planting. The two main reasons they rejected the site was firstly the issue of convergence, in that it would narrow the greenbelt between Cas and Ponte to a very slim corridor, unlike at Newmarket were even when fully constructed, the greenbelt to both the Wakefield and Leeds sides. Second, within the adopted core strategy, as well as this land being located on the M62 corridor some of it also had to relate, as best as possible, to the Wakefield city sub-region and not the Cas and Ponte sub-regions. Basically, some of the extra B8 has to be better served for people living in areas of Wakefield with the biggest employment issues (the Eastmoor estate being and example). Selecting Holywell Farm, or most of the other rejected sites, would mean that all the extra B8 allocation would all be in the Eastern section of the district and that would be against the core strategy. Newmarket means that the extra B8 is split evenly between to the two. So, although the objectors keeping telling us how remote the site is, WMDC think it is by far the best and only suitable site available when you look at the allocations as a whole.

As I said on Twitter, I don't think Matthew Sheppard was able to put forward a convincing or compelling enough argument in favour of selecting Holywell over Newmarket and the inspector would need to be totally convinced that WMDC had made made some substantial misjudgement in the selection of Newmarket if she was to overturn WMDC preferred site options. I don't feel she was, but only time and the report will tell!

Nathan Smith, acting on behalf of some of the Newmarket Lane Residents, was asked what he considered the best alternative site to Newmarket was, he also said that he felt Holywell farm was a better option than Newmarket... surprise, surprise! So, when the chips are down the objectors are quite happy to promote other areas of greenbelt over the area of greenbelt near them... what does NIMBY stand for again?



The inspector asked him what other sites he favoured over Newmarket and he just pretty much just listed the 10 other sites that WMDC had rejected. The inspector picked one of those sites at random and asked WMDC to again say why they had rejected this site. Once again, they were able to, IMO, put forward strong reasoning for rejecting this site. The inspector was not about to go through every site and I personally think that she was just demonstrating to the public meeting, by way of this example, that WMDC had been robust and consistent in there selection methodology. I got a little cheap but very polite shot in during this discussion against Mr Smith by pointing out that as Mr Smith was indeed being paid by residents of Newmarket Lane and therefore that by definition, any site other than Newmarket would be acceptable to his clients. This actually made both the inspector and Mr Smith chuckle and Mr Smith declined the inspectors offer to come back on this point!



I thought that Nathan Smith did the best he could, but as at the PI, their arguments looked & felt weak.

So in conclusion, I personally felt it went very well and I am struggling to see anything other than at least 51ha of land being taken out of greenbelt in the LDF... but equally, we will just have to wait and see in her report! There is also a slight possibility that she might take more land out of the greenbelt at Newmarket while still keeping the B8 allocation at 51ha! This is to do with technical site access arrangements and might mean the area for the business starter units also comes out of greenbelt but will not be allocated for specific use, but again we will have to see!

This whole situation is unprecedented, what with the LDF & PI for a planning application being ongoing at the same time! As such, if the LDF report upholds WMDC proposals to take Newmarket out of greenbelt and allocate for B8 in February then given that LCC did not object to the stadium at Newmarket, then it would be hard to see the PI report recommending turning down the planning application for the whole development. As the crux of both Leeds and the opposition action groups arguments is against the B8, and that the stadium, starter units and hotel are therefore less of an overall issue, then one inspector saying this land is OK for B8 but then the other saying no, would seem to a very embarrassing prospect for the planning inspectorate and as such, I can't see this happening! Of course, if Mrs Bussey says that Newmarket isn't the best B8 allocation then that could be a huge blow! However, the point is we just don't know because the processes are effectively independent!

I think the LDF process will show that this site is the best available site for the B8 but while we are confident, we are not complacent!

PS. LCC sent two members of staff, the highways guy that spoke at the PI, who said nothing at all, and a young lady in place of Sue Speak (one of LCC's senior planners) who I suspect is reasonably junior. She didn't say anything until right at the end, and then when she did she said very little and pretty much what she did say had been proved wanting at the PI.... it looked like she had been told to go through the motions! I picked up on a couple of issues but also took the opportunity to again state that we believed that LCC's objection was almost totally politically motivated and lacked any substance. The inspector offered LCC the opportunity to respond to me on this point.... and she declined! I think LCC have given up after the kicking they appeared to get at the PI and now just appear to be going through the motions!

Interestingly, both June Fender and a Dr Gajjar were 'at the table', along with Mr Crapper of Oulton Society. Mr Crapper spoke and made several points, most of which I took the opportunity to respond to, but June Fender & Dr Gajjar did not speak... at all! Also, Paul Williams and Andrew Booth were down to be at the table, but neither turned up!

Yes, both the LDF & PI decisions will be in effect final. However, if there was a procedural issue there is a possibility of a high court challenge... but it is very unlikely and also probably wouldn't actually change the decision itself!

Thanks for the update IA.....keep up the good work....








You sure we can't persuade you to become a Wildcat rather than a Whino ????

IA is indeed an honorary Wildcat.

Only till we get a YES, then he can "do one" like the rest of the Loiners

That's the spirit Al!!

The enigma that is June Fender has posted the following update on Newmarket on one of the Methley Village websites and I assume is the Methley Messenger e-mail.

[urlhttp://www.methley-village.com/html/residents_association.html[/url

This has to be the least overtly controversial & emotive piece I have seen written by June to date, and maybe she has learnt a valuable lesson after giving evidence to Inquiry where she was very skilfully 'backed out' of some potentially slanderous & defamatory allegations, by WMDC barrister... while of course completely destroying the credibility of her evidence.

A couple of things jump out at me though and this bit "...Wakefield Council, which ignored more than 1200 letters of objection and its own policies when it unanimously voted to approve the application in 2010." is interesting because this is clearly what she believes to be true, and if the application is passed, she will claim that the majority local view was ignored (remember, she thinks our 2800+ statements are "worthless"icon_wink.gif and, although we think this unlikely, the application is turned down, this will still be the case and it will vindicate her opinion. So whatever happens, in June's eye's, WMDC will always be wrong and her correct!

This was probably the most intriguing bit "Campaigners are challenging the lack of public consultation and conformity with national and local policies which Wakefield Council are obliged to obey." given the fact that she said not one single word at the LDF hearings and while Nathan Smith & Mr Crapper did challenge conformity with planning policy, know one challenged a lack of public consultation by WMDC at all (and to do so would be futile, just as it appeared to be at the PI).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what she posts following their next meeting.... I wonder if 'they' too now feel (as we hope) that they are going to be disappointed over the next few months?

At least we have won you over and you are as positive as we are now about a YES at least!

It reads very much like she is just trying to clear her name in the community now, in anticipation of a defeat, and end to her campaign.
I think she is just banging the drum as loud as she can in Methley, as you say, she didn't during her alloted opportunities during the hearing process, just so she can go down in glorious defeat, a bit of a heroin for the area.
Sadly she picked a fight she couldn't win, built her house on sand and was shown up to be an opponent with no substance, just a big mouth, and has wasted everyone's time.
I hope many of the people in Methley can see through her attempts at a last hurrah, i know quite a few who already do and some who have for a while.
She will soon be forgotten, "June who???".

Just spotted this bigalf. I think while you are correct about WMDC in many ways, I think when it comes to the LDF & the spacial planning team at WMDC, they are only justifying and defending the selection they made prior to the Yorkcourt planning application coming forward. When the inspector advised Wakefield to provide an additional 95ha of B8 on the M62, and it was a adopted in the core strategy, this was one of the four sites they chose to fulfil this requirement. We know that originally it was for 33ha and that was increased when the planning application was unanimously approved by the members, to 51ha for issues of democracy & robustness among many others, but that does not change the original decision made them in that in their opinion this was one of the four most suitable sites selected from the 46 sites originally considered!

You are also correct in that the stadium will be still be on greenbelt, but don't forget, you don't make allocations for 'stadium's' in an LDF and in actual fact it is only the stadium, car park, business starter units, hotel & fast food that would be seen as non permissible development, the rest of the current community sports facilities are seen as permissible and very appropriate for development in greenbelt!

Only time will tell of course now and I am sticking with my original odds... despite the PI & Inquiry going well... I might revise them up or down once I have seen Mrs Bussey's report!

Unlike the immortal Mr Crapper.

A Cas supporter I understand... not that, that will have had any potential influence on his opposition to Newmarket!

load of e!!!

I didnt write poop, I'm sure you can guess??

Don't think you are far wrong there, I guess it was all about putting herself forward as the areas leading capaigner. Expect to see her run as a councillor before long.

Oh and just to avoid any further reprisals you might want to put an 'e' on the end of heroin!

D'oh!!!!

Crapper by name crapper by nature, he talks a load of crapper