www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... -hart-lane Says here the government are 'highly unlikely' to intervene. Hope they decide not to intervene in other stadium developments too!

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... -hart-lane Says here the government are 'highly unlikely' to intervene. Hope they decide not to intervene in other stadium developments too!

Yeah!!!! im a spurs fan aswell as a wakey fan(yeah i had a difficult childhood never winning much

) this surley can only be good news for us?

Slightly different is it not? Aren't the only issues with your new ground the location of the site? They already have that so just an expansion of where they are which is a lot easier to get then the land full stop.

Yeah but we also have the retail side of which some of the people around the stadium did complain about but then they are probably too Smashed to realize a stadium being put there

We will have to wait and see, I am (and always have been) confident that NM will be batted back to the WMDC, although the wait is killing me and we all know nothing is certain if you wear the red, white and blue.

Any day now..

Not sure of the circumstances but, Rotherham fc have had PP given for their new stadium. If was on look north this evening.

(Not in the industry) But from an outsiders POV it seems stadiums alone have kept the construction industry ticking during a very hard time.
There just seem to be too many positives for this to go to a PI, both in the short, medium and long term.

You would think so!

I know, me and my phoney Trojan civic pride eh!

I was involved with the Tottenham stadium project briefly earlier this year and it is a highly complex project. The new ground actual sits, sort of, alongside the existing one and actually one end of the new ground (the stand) encroaches on the old ground. This is where I was involved, while doing some contract work for a rather large steel fabricator. They are going to construct 75% of the new ground, which sits alongside the current ground first, and then move in, with the stand behind the goal posts left out because the pitch literally backs up to the back of one of the existing stands at one end. They are then going to demolish the old ground, while playing in the 75% complete new one, and then finish the new one off! Massive undertaking and the steel fabricator I was doing some work for was looking at a solution to efficiently and effectively build and stabilise the 75% complete stadium it it's temporary condition. This might sound easy to the layman, but because the new ground is a bowl design, like Wembley, stopping the thing from racking over until it is finished is a huge structural problem!

As for location of the site, Tottenham have had to buy up a huge area of shops, flats and some existing flats & homes to get the site and I understand that is not quite sorted yet either. They will be diverting some major roads around the site and Sainsbury's are building a news store close by. The old site will then be a mixed use development to replace the amenities lost for the new site.

Newmarket pails into insignificance alongside these proposals and the planning issues it has raised locally and throughout London. So yes, it is slightly different, their issues are much bigger and more complex than Newmarket!

So how much of the Tottenham site is on Green Belt?

How much of our development is?
How long has it been designated green belt?
What was it's designated green belt intendended for?
What was it prior to it becoming green belt and for how long?
(don't ask silly billy, he's a bit iffy with owt that's happened in the last century and a bit!!)

Thought you would know the answer to this by now.

All (100%) of the development site is on Green Belt.

You are of course correct - but chose to answer just one question - the one which suits your argument (whatever that is) - much like the entire basis of the NIMBY campaign.

Take all the elements as whole and there is a substantial balance towards allowing the proposal to proceed - and yes, I am bound to say that, but it also very much what I believe and how I believe that this will turn out.

TRB's is correct and of course I fully agree with him... which you are of course not surprised about!

However, let me ask you a question, how many local residents and business are going to be directly impacted by the Tottenham new stadium build?

Yep, it is all (100%) in Greenbelt, exactly the same as all (100%) of the other land designated for B8 Development on the M62 corridor in Wakefield's Detailed LDF proposal!

And your point is?

Thanks for that!





You will never convince me that is the case.!



Believe me or not,I think you may be right!

Kinleycat asked a question and I answered it.

The point, if any, is that a large majority of people on here still are ignorant of that one fact.

Kinley Cat actually asked you a few questions but you only answerd the 1 what about the other 3/4 questions? or did you pass on those?

In answer to WTWTID


Don't know for sure but the UDF was adopted in 1994

Part agricultural, part colliery - the timescale is not relevant.

The purposes of including land within the Green Belt include:
• to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
• to prevent neighbouring towns for merging into one another
• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and
• to assist in urban regeneration, by [uencouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land.[/u

The pit closed in 1983 it became designated GB shortly after, the timescale is relevant as it was intended to regenerate the land, this in twenty odd years it has done.
The intention is not to in all circumstances to remain GB land, but to give the land time to recover. This land has been developed on many occaisions.
It is not and will not ever be a Great British beauty spot.

Don't buy into the LCC's objection, it's so thinly veiled it's untrue.

Testing the water is a phrase that comes to mind with relation to their U-turn in strategy.

New council, new tactics, old agenda for development toward Rothwell.
This objection plays by existing legislation which prohibits such a development, however if a petition from them to stop NM is turned down it is highly unlikely that a similar development on their side of the motorway would be turned down & leaves them in a strong position to ask for similar "favour" from the SoS.

They are playing dirty, but by the book. Just like in RL!!!!

I believe NM is nothing more than a test case for the LCC.
If we get the go ahead it's open season toward Rothwell.
If we get turned down they know the score for asking for a similar development within their own boarders.

Always thought this is the case, a point I made on another thread, I think it was silly billy (apologies if I'm wrong) bleating on about how Leeds is full of empty business units, so why should Wakefield build more!!!
When NM goes through just watch the planning apps go in for the adjacent areas in Leeds!!!

Without a doubt.
When this all get's built in 10 years or so it would be interesting to see where about the workers of J30 live.
I would bet a decent percentage being from Leeds. Not to mention our friends in Methley.