This is not good news. I was speaking to somebody who is in the know on the council recently and they seemed very positive about it going ahead but they were not sure about fitting it in to our timescale.

Better hope the CSR saves our bacon on the 20th.

I think it is a legal notice under The Highways Act 1980 and the council cannot overide it - I may be wrong though.

I have just spoken to TRB, he's on a site and cannot get online at this moment in time.

He will be on later to explain.


Please remember all the good news, all the positivity from last night.

Remember those words...

WE ARE WAKEFIELD - TOGETHER WE ARE STRONG

If this is correct and it has been shot down before it even enters the realm of council approval:

WE ARE WAKEFIELD - TOGETHER WE ARE DROWNING

We have all been led on a merry dance, and now its finally over - the fat lady is singing the last symphony!

May as well try and pull something out of the embers and merge with Barnsley before the next lot of franchises next year!

The issue is something that SWAG is aware of, but it is only a minor issue. It will not stop the planning process from going through. It is a technical issue, not a show stopping one.

We’re still on track for next Friday.

I may not be a Wakefield supporter but locking this thread to stop debate about public knowledge is not the answer.

Rather pointless now, given that some attention-seeking gimp has posted the link on the VT for everyone to enjoy there too.

Remember there is another side to this story, so don't all go reaching for the Asprin and bottle of gin just yet.

Are they the same sort of "technical issues" Ted is going through financially?

Maybe if we promise not to drive to the ground they will allow us to have it.

Dying to hear the good news from this one.

No, things are still on track for next week.

The fat lady better sit down.

Every season ticket holder gets a free Wildcats bicycle. One billion Chinese can't be wrong.

I really hope she can!

And Boris!

Point taken and understood

It wasn't aimed at you, mate. Just a general comment.

khlav's involved with SWAG, so his take on things is good enough for me.

We can't be certain of the outcome until the 22nd anyway, regardless of how optimistic/pessimistic we may feel.

Link not working guys can some one sum up the in and outs?

Was working 1 hour ago,looks like been removed

Is it usual for these sort of documents, with people's names and email addresses, to be hosted on the council's Website for the world to see? It did surprise me.

I'm back!

Right - this issue arose yesterday, has been discussed with all the relevant parties and it is agreed that the right thing to do is to press on with the planning meeting. This item will NOT prevent the meeting being granted a 'mindful to accept' verdict. It could end up as a reserved matter, which would then require further work following the 22nd, but it could also be dealt with in time for the 22nd - it is merely the submission of further information requested by the HA.

We did not mention this as it alters nothing in reality. It is a shame that this has come out in this manner, but we were not aware that this was going on the portal so soon.

=#BF0040IT IS NOT GAME OVER - NOTHING HAS CHANGED - NOTHING IS WRONG AND THIS CAN BE DEALT WITH CALMLY AND PROFESSIONALLY.

As we get nearer the time, it is not surprising that we get a little panicky, but this is very much an item for which a simple question would have resulted in a simple answer. Most of the panel at last nights meeting were aware of this issue, and they all seemed fairly convincing in their belief that this would happen!

Stay strong!

Thanks for the update. Good to know.

Park on the hard shoulder, be reet

Recommendation to the Planning Committee: RECOMMENDATION In the event that Members consider the application should be determined rather than deferred for further examination of some of the issues in the report then Members could either refuse the application based on the planning policy issues raised in the report or be minded to approve the application on the basis that there are benefits which outweigh the policy issues raised in the report and subject to conditions, section 106 obligations, referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan involving green belt land, and the Highways Agency direction being removed. Should the Secretary of State not wish to call in the application a decision could be delegated to the Service Director subject to a Section 106 covering:- and conditions the wording of which to be delegated to the Service Director in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. Source: mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgConvert2PD ... &T=10&J=23

Recommendation to the Planning Committee: RECOMMENDATION In the event that Members consider the application should be determined rather than deferred for further examination of some of the issues in the report then Members could either refuse the application based on the planning policy issues raised in the report or be minded to approve the application on the basis that there are benefits which outweigh the policy issues raised in the report and subject to conditions, section 106 obligations, referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan involving green belt land, and the Highways Agency direction being removed. Should the Secretary of State not wish to call in the application a decision could be delegated to the Service Director subject to a Section 106 covering:- and conditions the wording of which to be delegated to the Service Director in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. Source: mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgConvert2PD ... &T=10&J=23

That just about covers every possible outcome.