Indeed. Not that I would expect our country cousins to be grateful though! Too bloody busy with their plans to cement over our green and pleasant County!



And when, and if a tax demand comes our way, I'm sure that as the best managed Club in SL, we have the resources to deal promptly with it.

No embarrassing Winding up Orders here!

It still begs the question, if the industrial units at plots 4 and 6 are taken out of the equation, is the Stadium Plan still a goer?

When I wrote those last few words I knew what was coming.

No!

The point is very much the same. Reusing and restructuring land in order to meet the needs of the economy, both now and in the future. Except IMO NM has more positives as a site (and a project) than Shelburn- & the LCC think's that's the best thing since sliced bread!

Can you not see how this was received? The government welcomed this with open arms. Do you seriously think the Con-dem's will call this in? 1000's of construction jobs- spanning nearly a decade as well as 1000's more permanent jobs. Millions in business rates for the local authority- lessening the dependency on central government. And that's ignoring the fact there have been a grand total of 0 public inquiries relating to planning issues commenced since May this year.

The LCC is so critical of NM purely because from their prospective it's happening the wrong side of the motorway for them.

IMO those in power are only thinking in terms of economic regeneration so will be as welcoming of NM as any Trinity fan.

I'm surprised that people come on here to tell us all that we have no chance, when there is every chance that they will be proved wrong. Aren't they better hanging fire and then just laughing if it doesn't come off, because there might be some very big eggs on faces?

All well and good for the City of Wakefield, if it is allowed, but what about the rest of the district where land has been earmarked for employment use, why ride roughshod over Newmarket destroying more green belt than necessary when other land has been designated to cover future needs? apart from the need for a stadium which by the way, as I have said to you before I actualy support but not in the way proposed!

Quote ="Sandal Wild Cat"And that's ignoring the fact there have been a grand total of 0 public inquiries relating to planning issues commenced since May this year. '" Not true. www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8 ... called_in/

Quote ="Sandal Wild Cat"And that's ignoring the fact there have been a grand total of 0 public inquiries relating to planning issues commenced since May this year. '" Not true. www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8 ... called_in/

Quote ="Fully"Not true. www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8 ... called_in/ '" snippet Borough of Poole is standing by its position to grant planning permission for the controversial 450 student flats and 378 homes =#FF0000on farm and heath land at Wallisdown. slightly different scenario, it not been developed on an old pit and slag heaps

Quote ="Fully"Not true. www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8 ... called_in/ '" snippet Borough of Poole is standing by its position to grant planning permission for the controversial 450 student flats and 378 homes =#FF0000on farm and heath land at Wallisdown. slightly different scenario, it not been developed on an old pit and slag heaps

Wasn't using it to compare cases mate. I was just clarifying that applications have been called in.

There have been at least ten since coalition took office, I'd estimate.

Good with all them already on the go, they won't have room for another

Ignore that. The planning website is confusing. Think it carries them over onto next month which reduces the number somewhat. Cannot estimate how many but there's at least ten I would assume.

I think the reference to none was to do with the regional office. I don't think Bournemouth is in the same region, and so the figure none still stands.

Accept that it doesn't mean that it can't go up to one though.

some will get called hence the reason for that one, others are just so clear cut that to waste time in delaying it won't help the economy

Quote ="Slugger McBatt"I think the reference to none was to do with the regional office. I don't think Bournemouth is in the same region, and so the figure none still stands. Accept that it doesn't mean that it can't go up to one though.'" Regional Offices are being abolished aren't they? www.communities.gov.uk/statement ... government Also, what does the Regional Office cover in terms of area? West Yorkshire? Yorkshire and Lincolnshire?

Quote ="Slugger McBatt"I think the reference to none was to do with the regional office. I don't think Bournemouth is in the same region, and so the figure none still stands. Accept that it doesn't mean that it can't go up to one though.'" Regional Offices are being abolished aren't they? www.communities.gov.uk/statement ... government Also, what does the Regional Office cover in terms of area? West Yorkshire? Yorkshire and Lincolnshire?

Grateful my arris; if the Whinos [iare[/i taking on HMRC, they're doing it out of self interest - probably because they know full well that their bill will be one of the biggest.

As for the rest of your post; we call it hubris down our way - look it up.

Couldn't find it....all I got when I googled Wakefield, was small town syndrome, and something called the Co- Operative Championship!

That would be hilarious if it was funny.

However, it isn't.

Are you forgetting something? The 95 ha/235 acres of B8 development land that Wakefield now have a legal requirement to find on the M62 corridor in the Wakefield District (not Leeds District) following the ratification of Wakefield's draft LDF? This is in ADDITION to land already designated. So central government don't agree and your statement is therefore incorrect. It should be noted that the Newmarket site at 213 acres for the whole lot, still falls some short of that mandated target, so other currently designated green-belt in Wakefield is very likely to be re-designated and developed in the next 10 years.

This is a legal requirement Leeds City Council seem to have conveniently ignored by recommending sites in Leeds!!!

Quote ="Fully"Regional Offices are being abolished aren't they? www.communities.gov.uk/statement ... government Also, what does the Regional Office cover in terms of area? West Yorkshire? Yorkshire and Lincolnshire?'" They are yes, and the role is being taken on by Eric Pickles office as he is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government... that is why we have been talking about him in relation to the call-in!

Quote ="Fully"Regional Offices are being abolished aren't they? www.communities.gov.uk/statement ... government Also, what does the Regional Office cover in terms of area? West Yorkshire? Yorkshire and Lincolnshire?'" They are yes, and the role is being taken on by Eric Pickles office as he is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government... that is why we have been talking about him in relation to the call-in!

Not forgeting anything - You may be wrong.

In the LDF proposals the part of the Newmarket site is 33.28Ha allocated towards the 95Ha. In addition there are proposed B8 sites at Ferrybridge/Knottingley totalling 58Ha towards the 95Ha requirment.

That leave 4Ha which may be elswhere.

There is [uno need [/ufor more at Newmarket than the 33 Ha on the LDF plan.

BillyRhino pictured earlier this morning...

Well, firstly lets deal with those sites you mention. Are they or are they not also currently green-belt land in the UDP? Tell you what, I will save you the trouble of answering... that would be YES wouldn't it???

So are you making the case that the green-belt at Newmarket is more important green-belt than is currently allocated at Ferrybridge and Knottingley?

Tell us more, what makes this green-belt better than the green-belt over there... oh, that would be it, that green-belt is over there and not over here... you don't live near there, you live near here!

Secondly, you have made one huge error with those two sites haven't you! Would you like me to tell you what error you have made?

Oh yes, that is right these sites were already in the core strategy and ARE NOT contributing the additional 95ha. The only site that has been identified in the LDF as, so far, contributing to the additional 95ha is indeed circa 34ha at Newmarket isn't it!

Nice try!

Yes.. A fine example of a joke but without the funny bit...

And of course factual incorrect... that would be 'small =#FF0000city syndrome'

Good Evening IA -

Well, firstly, of course I know those sites are Green Belt! - I'm not as daft as you might think!