most of the anti brigade wouldn't know a otter if one @@@@ on their head

alan, you need to choose your friends more carefully, or vet their choice of wife more vigilantly, im disappointed in you, thought you were a cause warrior!

He's a wakey fan, won't have been a happy tea time in that house tonight, but its her job.

Anyway i can afford to be fussy can i.

good point, well made!

we need to mobilise the over 90's!!! www.redcafe.net/f8/otter-targets ... an-287906/ if that had been a drug addict there would have been uproar!

we need to mobilise the over 90's!!! www.redcafe.net/f8/otter-targets ... an-287906/ if that had been a drug addict there would have been uproar!

Got a letter from the council, today, acknowledging my comments.

standard issue.

West Yorkshire Ecology's concerns largely seem to deal with issues that will need addressing in a FULL planning application, not an outline application. Some of their comments specifically state this.

I am sure the developers are more than capable of dealing with all these concerns in due course.

not looked through all this thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned but there was a piece in the pontefract and cas express today about the development, basically methley residents raising concerns about the effect of the development as a whole (not so much the stadium) it does just seem to be the industrial side that people have a problem with. i dont know how to put a link on for people to look at but i am sure one of you will be able to look on the p&c web site and do that.

If they are planning on mail-dropping the original flyer I posted, in that form, I think the author may be taking quite a big risk. I am not sure the Wakefield MDC will take to kindly to clearly untrue comments aimed at them that are quite close to being libellous. You can't accuse the council or the developer of not effectively not complying with planning law, when it is clearly untrue.

In some ways this may work against them, as it makes the flyer less credible and indeed clearly shows their objection to be without factual foundation and NIMBY . Unfortunately, not wanting this or any development next to your house is not a valid objection.

As a resident of Stanley I don't think there is any great feeling either way to be honest and certainly most people in Stanley itself seem to be broadly in favour. I think the only real objection is coming from the hand-full of houses on Newmarket Lane itself and some Methley residents further down Newmarket Lane. I understand that quite a few people on the Moorhouse estate and down Bottom Boat are only upset that the plans don't include for signal controlled junctions out onto Aberford Road at both locations! It is a nightmare for them to turn right towards the motorway and they would like traffic lights!

When the developer put his original plans in to convert Stanley Church to flats and build new houses in the Church yard, feeling ran very high and well over 200 people turned up to a public meeting at the Community Centre... and for this... nothing! I think that might tell you all you need to know!

yes i remember the protest / petition against the juntion39 (close to home ) that would of incorporated YCCC , my next door neighbour at the time came round with a scaremongering that 20'000 fans would be around and that kids would be run over by juggernauts and that our house values would drop and fans from across the Yorkshire border would rape steal and pillage our pets.

i swore at her

and a few years later a car garage a couple of pubs , hotels ect were still built , massive opportunity lost we must make sure we succeed with this

VERY WORRIED OVER THIS!!!!

No idea but lets hope so.

Yep, so do i.

Guys, a Giant here in peace. I have read the various planning consultation comments out of professional interest. The West Yorks Ecology issue is a concern - but they are objecting not ask for rejection. They actually appear to ask that it not be determined until greater detail is presented. The danger to WTW is in delay, due to franchising.

I would suggest that supportive comments dismissing ecological concerns are well intentioned but of dubious value, better to honestly support as a trin fan and make no ecological/wildlife comment. The West Yorks Ecology letter does suggest that further detail would help - that is what the developer needs to do. (The other objection is dealt with by a set of traffic lights, I see no need for concern)

Do not forget the council can grant permission based on conditions - one could be satisfying West Yorks Ecology. My suggestion is recognise their concerns and make them your friend - then you will get your stadium

This is correct. OUTLINE permission can be granted, with conditions that have to be met within the FULL planning application.

Whilst these things may be a challenge, they are not insurmountable and shouldn't slow the process down either.

Well put and I think many realise this. A few may jest with regards to the ecological findings but in this day and age they are a body which need to be respected, and rightly so.

I think the plans have gone a long way to preserving any wildlife at the site. The Non-technical summary made no mention of otters so maybe that’s why any mitigation to protect them and their habitat was not included into the design. If it had, as with the water voles, I’m sure it would’ve been.

Hopefully the developers are on to this already and I concur that permission may be granted with strict conditions such as the one you mentioned.

Absolutely correct.



We need to support the positive reasons for this development - rather than rubbish genuine opposition.

Natural England’s response to the West Yorkshire ecologies findings.


Pretty much sums up what others have said on the matter.

That's no show-stopper!

Indeed, as others have said permission may still be given with the strict conditions that the mitigations are put in place prior to any commencement of works. Feel a little better after reading that.

Seems the potentially libellous leaflet is now online. www.wakefieldccg.co.uk/

Seems the potentially libellous leaflet is now online. www.wakefieldccg.co.uk/

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the issues in relation to Otter habitats is minor and I would expect that the planning condition that they have requested will indeed by added and that will be that.

The objectors website does now look professional and they have toned down the language on the site itself, so not sure why they would keep the very poor potentially libellous leaflet up there as well? But, I think the leaflet does them more harm than good, so let them keep it up there!

The use of the term 'Green Belt' is a key point to trying to drum up support for their objections and they are using it in such a way to make people think the land is a beautiful green public space. It isn't, it is in the main reclaimed industrial brown field land and is (and always has been) privately owned. It is not agricultural or recreation green space (in the main) and it is not used by the public for recreation or leisure, in fact other than a few locals who walk their dogs on the land and the use of the public footpaths, it is not used for anything. The entrances and exits to key parts of the site are protected by so called 'Gypsy mounds' to prevent travellers gaining entry to the site and setting up a camp.

I really hope that anyone who objects does pay attention to the details listed at the bottom of this page: www.wakefieldccg.co.uk/how-to-object.html as they're all dealt with in the plan, as far as I can tell

I really hope that anyone who objects does pay attention to the details listed at the bottom of this page: www.wakefieldccg.co.uk/how-to-object.html as they're all dealt with in the plan, as far as I can tell

where do they get only 4% is for the stadium? seems more like 15-16% looking at the areas listed on the plans.

Shh! Don't go talking sense, you'll only confuse them!