Quote Sandal Wild Cat="Sandal Wild Cat"A similar story also made The Guardians website: www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/oc ... ouncillors Our good friend Foulmouth aka Outwood Tiger was quick to make a comment, to which I quickly shot down. If people claim that there are unused facilities of the scale that are required to meet regional economic targets they will have no problem backing up that claim with statistics and suitable sites- THAT ARE WITHIN OUR REGION. Neither NIMBY, nutter (foulmouth) nor naysayer (LCC) have been able to do any of the above. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good old "Wakey bashing". One thing I did think of today was that the industrial sites (the major point of contention on the face of it) were designated as part of the LDF, which has been ratified by central government already. Would this not fly in the face of the need for a public inquiry??? Why pay millions to decide something which has already been approved in draft?'" Excellent point and one which needs to be highlighted by the developer to the SoS

Quote Sandal Wild Cat="Sandal Wild Cat"A similar story also made The Guardians website: www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/oc ... ouncillors Our good friend Foulmouth aka Outwood Tiger was quick to make a comment, to which I quickly shot down. If people claim that there are unused facilities of the scale that are required to meet regional economic targets they will have no problem backing up that claim with statistics and suitable sites- THAT ARE WITHIN OUR REGION. Neither NIMBY, nutter (foulmouth) nor naysayer (LCC) have been able to do any of the above. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good old "Wakey bashing". One thing I did think of today was that the industrial sites (the major point of contention on the face of it) were designated as part of the LDF, which has been ratified by central government already. Would this not fly in the face of the need for a public inquiry??? Why pay millions to decide something which has already been approved in draft?'" Excellent point and one which needs to be highlighted by the developer to the SoS

of course they will. in actual fact the small roads through these villages will be made 7.5tonne limit roads and no lorries will go anywhere near them. i live about 1/2 mile from j41 which is massively bigger than this development and never see goods traffic anywhere except leeds road.

Then there is the industrial vehicle ban on Aberford Road and Methley, but of course it makes economic sense for HGV's to travel through residential areas..... Oh yeah that's utter rubbish!

But you are wrong - The Facts are that The LDF has only just passed the consultation phase (29th September2010).



Nothing has been ratified by Central Government.



The next step is:



Please note the consultation period for making comments on the Consultation Draft document has finished. The Council is processing all comments received about the proposals and will acknowledge each one in due course.



The Council will take into account all the comments received about the proposals set out in the consultation document. The Council will publish a summary of all the comments received and it's response to them as part of preparing a final document to be submitted to government for independent examination. At that stage there will be an opportunity for comments to be made about the soundness of the document.



[uAt this moment in time the whole development site is Green Belt.[/u

I never said it wasn't on green belt land just that it had been designated by the LDF, and no the draft of the LDF has been ratified by the previous government.

A draft tends to come before a consultation period, without it what would people be consulted on?

We've all been expecting the tories to put a stop to every plan in our northern towns but in their defence the three major projects going on in widnes have all recently been given a go ahead. Have faith that somewhere out there reasonable people are ready to take into account your tight schedule.

Quote Sandal Wild Cat="Sandal Wild Cat"I never said it wasn't on green belt land just that =#BF0040A small part of the whole development site had been designated by the LDF'" Edited for accuracy Here is the plan showing the area proposed to be designated employment which would exclude most of the development. www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment

Quote Sandal Wild Cat="Sandal Wild Cat"I never said it wasn't on green belt land just that =#BF0040A small part of the whole development site had been designated by the LDF'" Edited for accuracy Here is the plan showing the area proposed to be designated employment which would exclude most of the development. www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment

I hope wakey do get there ground as crusaders should be out but if you live in a quiet road then all of a sudden 20 a so hgv come rumbling down wud u like it cos i wudnt good luck the wildcats

Yes the site for the industrial units have been sanctioned for employment (as I said). Which is currently farmland/meadows.

The stadium is to be built on green belt land- which is actually a former colliery. So not really green belt IMO; even if for arguments sake we say it is (which it isn't) a community stadium and sporting facilities are perfect uses for green belt, as the preserve it's use to the public.



So from my prospective the point of contention (the industrial units) are situated on land which has been ratified in draft by the central government. Is this not the point of contention with NIMBY's and the LCC?

so I take it allmatt you was one of the four that thought it was that important to turn up on the day to protest against it

Quote allmatt="allmatt"Edited for accuracy Here is the plan showing the area proposed to be designated employment which would exclude most of the development. www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment'" Which only further backs up my point that the major point of contention (B8 warehousing) is situated on land that has already been ratified per the LFD. So you tick that off; what's your next point of contention? This site of the stadium? A community stadium and sporting facilities are perfectly viable uses for green belt land. You wanna keep feeding me ammo?

Quote allmatt="allmatt"Edited for accuracy Here is the plan showing the area proposed to be designated employment which would exclude most of the development. www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment'" Which only further backs up my point that the major point of contention (B8 warehousing) is situated on land that has already been ratified per the LFD. So you tick that off; what's your next point of contention? This site of the stadium? A community stadium and sporting facilities are perfectly viable uses for green belt land. You wanna keep feeding me ammo?