Rather than try to explain the net gain of green belt just let him work it out on his own by READING THE APPLICATION.



The GB land doesn't have to be based at NM- merely owned by YK. It can then be transferred from their control to that of another body (WMDC) who reclassify it and protect it- until the next time to redevelop comes along, then it's back to musical chairs.



This point was explained at length at a fans evening. Funnily enough not attended by RB.

Thank you GP FC



I wonder if the irony of an ignoramous accusing someone of ignorance whilst being the very definition of ignorant will dawn on RB at some point!

The two cllrs that were at the meeting at Stanley Rangers stated that there was going to be a net gain of 1% green belt in the district.

How and where it comes from I don't know, but they were their words.

As you say Greenbelt is a planning term and I think what is being said is if further land that was designated for development use is reclassified as Greenbelt then there can be a net increase in Greenbelt.

Hung himself with his own reasoning.



Ironic thing is his reasoning was 100% correct, just his hated blinded the correct thinking.



FWIW I actually think RB's actually pretty well informed- he just takes a polar opposite view point to us because of his RL loyalties.

AI was sat no more than 5 foot away from the councillors who explained this point.



IIRC the only time "green field" was brought up was to clarify the difference and point out that this site was in no way "green field".

I was at the meeting and I cannot remember whether they said greenbelt or greenspace.



There certainly has been an increase in "green" due to a number of old pit sites that have been reclaimed most notably the former Frickley, Wheldale and Fryston Collieries which are now "green". Also a large part of Fryston was designated for housing and is now green space.



I think the point that Councillors were making is that there is an increase in green space in the District and may be not necessarily an increase in greenbelt but the fact of the matter is that there is an increasein green space however you want to look at it.

It was Greenbelt that has gone up by 1%. It's nice to think that we've played a part in that - professionally - and it would be even nicer if we could cash a little bit of that in - somewhere around the M62 would be good!

As TRB has pointed out, it was definitely green belt that was mentioned.

Thanks for all your replies and Clan for your essays ! Hope it is read by the PM, the more views and posts we get the more it is likely to do some good or rather it cannot do any harm

Could not recall exactly what they said but certainly land that was previously designated for development has been redesignated greenbelt - I think there was some around Cutsyke and the housing land at Fryston that will never be developed will be greenbelt so its not inconceivable that greenbelt has gone up 1% - all the Council has done is redistributed around.

One of the main purposes or greenbelt is to crate a space between towns cities to stop them merging into one, if it is true what you has been said, then most of these areas will hardly stop Leeds and Wakefield converging.



What is more it is another example of how the process over this whole thing has been poorly managed, we have residents we real concerns and a right to know what is going on, and the council are giving the facts to out at a supporters meeting, rather than trying to quell the fears of those effected. Also playing swapsy on land reclassification at the whim of one developer. I am glad that this is going to inquiry and the people of Wakefield will get an unbiased result.