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!!!