Good point - Green belt is Green belt! but I am sure that it could be argued by conservationists/ramblers/tree huggers etc that NM is more important in eclological terms.

See my last reply as regards which may be considered, by some people, more important.

Oh You don't know where I live

but I do actually live nearer there than here!

I accept that you are strictly correct but
Lets not get into the semantics about this:

"Site detached from any settlement
which is contrary to Policy CS 1. It is
in the Green Belt which contrary to
Policy CS 3 but proposed to be
removed in accordance with Policy CS
12 due to exceptional circumstances
(the requirement for strategic
employment land on the M62 corridor
in accordance with Policy CS

. The
proposal is restricted to B8 wholesale
and freight distribution use. This is a
brownfield and greenfield/previously
reclaimed site adjacent Junction 30 of
the M62 contributing towards the
required additional 95 hectares of B8
(storage and distribution) land along
the M62 corridor, which conforms to
Policy CS 8."

as opposed to this:

"In accordance with the regional spatial
strategy and the core strategy, no
further employment land is required to
be allocated for the plan period other
than 95 has of wholesale and freight
distribution (Bicon_cool.gif employment land
within the M62 corridor. This
establishes the exceptional
circumstances required for the 'release'
of green belt land in the absence of
other suitable non-green belt land
being available."

You and I both know that the land at Ferrybridge/Knottingley is "earmarked" for the 95Ha as stated above.

I am sure that there would be little objection to a Stadium on the site as it is proposed (Green Belt) with a small industrial area on the 33 Ha leaving the vast majority untouched. But that would never happen even if it got the all clear, would it?

While I admire your persistence I think you have to admit you've lost this one allmatt.
Wakefield has spoken. Your not making any friends coming on here, we know you don't like the ruling but as they say "put up or shut up!".

If your not a Wakefield fan/ have anything positive to say about NM why bother coming on here?

You lost mate, build a bridge!

if he can't be d to turn up to the hearing it can't mean that much to him,
just leave if to stew with his own words

the stadium and other developments will happen

OY AllMATT!!!! what a sad sad sad person you are!! havent you got anything better to do like take the dog for a walk round the fields where in 14 months time there will be a shiny new sports arena and training facilities built ,worthy of attracting the worlds best rugby league athletes. Now stop bleating on and SOD OFF!!!!

Nice!

Where?

I am correct and I am not getting into semantics, but you are trying to use them to justify your error. The LDF is clear and you even posted an extract from it above which shows it is clear! The sites at Knottingley and Ferrybridge are NOT included in the 95ha as they were already fulfilling the original ratified LDF core strategy areas. They were probably already 'known' and therefore 'earmarked' by Wakefield's strategic planning team to be in the detailed plan and the appropriate areas used in the overall calculated area figures for B8 development, throughout the whole district, within the original now ratified core strategy but they are not included in the additional 95ha. The additional 95ha came out of the original review of the draft LDF and the only site identified so far contributing to this area and therefore within the detailed LDF is Newmarket. That leaves 62ha to find at some point in the future in addition to the areas shown in the LDF, if you just use the circa 33ha only at Newmarket.

The chances are that if they only did develop the 33ha shown in the LDF at Newmarket they would have to find 62ha on other green-belt areas and quite possibly with poorer links to the motorway network and closer to more densely populated areas.

I also think you are kidding yourself if you think that there would be 'little' objection if they only took the 33ha and the stadium/MUGA areas. The 33ha still surrounds the two people making the most noise about this development and the chances are once it is approved in the detailed LDF, as it is will no longer be green-belt but employment land, they will probably get away with a more dense and less sympathetic development.

I am sure they will be delighted! They probably will not get a new road, maybe just improve the existing Newmarket Lane, so they will really have HGV running past their house like they have been claiming is going to happen already, as the size of the development will not suit such a big section 106 contribution.

That is the thing, the current scheme stacks financially and Wakefield gets new community sport facilities and a stadium. If you reduce the size of the scheme it doesn't stack and therefore WE the public miss out, we don't get as many jobs, Wakefield Trinity miss out and the poor saps that live there still get industrial units built around their houses eventually, but we ALL (including the NIMBY's) have less to show for it!

Great plan! Are you going to tell them or should I?

Not that they will listen!

Would that be argued by real conservationists/ramblers/tree huggers or would that be by Wakefield & Leeds Community Conservation Group?

Maybe they should do another Otter survey... although finding the buggers is hard enough, so getting them to answer questions is even harder!

I have list of circa 1300 addresses on my desk here... I bet yours is one of them! Just need to narrow my search area if you live in Leeds and closer to Ferrybridge than Stanley... hmmm, I reckon I could get it down to less than 50 addresses!

Steady on old chap, that sounds a bit menacing - last thing we need now is somebody bleating about threats and cyber-stalking!

I reckon if we just let them wallow in their own self-delusion and wait and see what happens re. J30 and Glasshoughton it would be better and less acrimonious for all concerned.

Oh come on Wakeyrule ... I_A is hardly going to track him down and go 'beat him up' is he



Do we know if Allmatt is a Cas fan because a very large number of them have suddenly become ardent conservationists



He actually sounds a bit like the guy who spoke at the planning meeting who quoted regulations and numbers to the councillors but got it all wrong and made a numpty of himself!

I've never quite understand the mentality of people who come on here to tell us why the ground shouldn't be built. I see the forum as somewhere to discuss and banter about rugby stuff and as a portal for information. Someone screaming at us how the ground won't be built is not going to change the outcome or our views. Most posts from informed Wakey fans, and the now well-regarded Leeds one, are keeping people informed about the prospects of the development, but then people start bellowing as to how it won't happen. I'm happy to let the people who decide these things decide it, and for posters to keep me informed as to the potential pitfalls, without people who have no say on the outcome wailing from their keyboard about how unfair it all is, because no one on here who says it "might" happen will look stupid if it doesn't, but the small number who say that it won't will look really stupid if it does.

Is'nt it one of the main points for not building anywhere else is that Yorkcourt already own the land at Newmarket and are therefore unlikely to build on any other land.

Like his mate Amber, always on other sites being hostile but hardly ever on his own site.
I conclude he was either dropped on his head or something went wrong in the experiment!!!
Complete numptys!!!

I'll enlighten you. The common sense approach that would have secured both yours and Cas's future would have been to share a stadium, but you both rejected that. Therefore, when people display that level of gormlessness, you have to expect a fair amount of extracting the urine.

Add into that, some of the opinions expressed by Wakie fans regarding Leeds Council, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and you can see why it would be bad manners not to gently wind them up. According to some, it's a done deal, whereas informed Wakie fans know full well, it all rests on the advice that Mr Pickles chooses to follow.

I don't honestly think that there is one genuine RL fan who would begrudge you a new stadium, which would be a great asset to Wakefield, but, if the baggage that comes with its construction is acres and acres of warehousing, then people will tend to ask awkward questions.

That would be the common sense approach that saw the RFL/SL pushing both clubs into a takeover/merger situation somewhere down the line would it?

You know as well as anyone that it wouldn't take long for them to go from 2 clubs in one stadium to suggesting it makes more sense for us to pool resources.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Billy Rhino. Were there many people who asked questions when wigans ground was built many moons ago. Do you actually go to away matches and see the sprawling retail park that surrrounds the DW stadium. This was built in conjunction with developers as before there was acres and acres of football and rugby pitches to what i can remember. Mind you if it wasnt for a certain Mr Caddick who threatened to take his bat and ball home we would have a shiny new stadium next to the should have been new home of Yorkshire cricket at Durkar!!!!!

Sheddingly is a dump & so id Odsal; here's an idea for you, build a brand new stadium next to the airport for both of you to share.

Na didn't think you'd like it.
Ask KR fans why they wouldn't move to the KC.

Just in case anyone was fooled, always remember that for every IA, there is a Billyrhino.

That is all.

OK! I say "Potatoe", you say "Potato"

Lets agree to differ on this and see what happens in the next few weeks.

does that mean your going to sod off now

It's not the people who say that they would rather it didn't, but the ones who say that it won't and can't that I can't quite understand. Nothing wrong with opinions, and nothing wrong with banter.

I know it's been done to death, but Wakefield are willing to share a stadium, as the Community Trust are willing to let anyone who wants to play there do so. The only thing that Wakey said was that they weren't prepared to play in Castleford, in the ground that is being developed by Castleford. That would not have led to any security for Wakefield, as the club would have either withered and died, or merged. If Headingley was thought to be unsuitable (and the irony of the stadium criteria is that soon the ground of one of the top clubs will be the oldest), would you agree to play at Valley Parade along with Bradford as a permanent move? I know the distance is greater, but the principle is the same. You wouldn't, because it is in Bradford.