Too many TLAs for me.

TLAs?

Sorry to do this to you mate... but you are wrong!

Site N101 - Castleford Tigers Ground is designated as providing 105 houses within the Site Specific Proposals Submission. You are looking in the wrong place now! Because this area falls within SPA N9 the housing sites within this area are no longer listed seperatley like the other hosuing sites within the LDF! [i"Alongside housing allocations, some special policy areas also contribute towards housing delivery and these are shown in the tables below. Special policy areas are capable of accommodating a range of different land uses and not just housing, but where areas within them will contribute towards housing delivery this information is included in the tables. "[/i

If you don't believe me, the table is here - rlhttp://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/portal/spatial_policy/ssp_sub/ssp_sub/sspdpd_sub?pointId

Sorry!

Quote: bigalf "Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.'"

Yes, true but also you forget that the LDF core strategy is in force so it is not just a simple matter of looking at the old UDP anymore. Plus this document is now 3 years in the making and just suddenly turning a blind eye to it would be foolish because Morrison's and Asda's planning lawyers would be all over this like a rash. Not insurmountable, especially in an SPA, but this is yet another reason that this will take time to reach a conclusion! I do think this is one of the reasons they want to get this moving sooner or later. I understand that they are worried that they planning inspector will not call them to appear, now that in the technical consultation they have changed their mind (Castleford Tigers and Ben Bailey pushed for this to be designated as housing since the start of the LDF process) and that could be a problem. The document now has to go forward to the planning inspector showing WR as housing and that is unlikely to be changed, IMO, by the planning inspector without bloody good reasons for doing so... and no, funding a new stadium is not, in his eyes, a good enough reason I suspect!

Three Letter Abbreviations.

Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "Sorry to do this to you mate... but you are wrong! Site N101 - Castleford Tigers Ground is designated as providing 105 houses within the Site Specific Proposals Submission. You are looking in the wrong place now! Because this area falls within SPA N9 the housing sites within this area are no longer listed seperatley like the other hosuing sites within the LDF! [i"Alongside housing allocations, some special policy areas also contribute towards housing delivery and these are shown in the tables below. Special policy areas are capable of accommodating a range of different land uses and not just housing, but where areas within them will contribute towards housing delivery this information is included in the tables. "[/i If you don't believe me, the table is here - rlhttp://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/portal/spatial_policy/ssp_sub/ssp_sub/sspdpd_sub?pointId Sorry! Yes, true but also you forget that the LDF core strategy is in force so it is not just a simple matter of looking at the old UDP anymore. Plus this document is now 3 years in the making and just suddenly turning a blind eye to it would be foolish because Morrison's and Asda's planning lawyers would be all over this like a rash. Not insurmountable, especially in an SPA, but this is yet another reason that this will take time to reach a conclusion! I do think this is one of the reasons they want to get this moving sooner or later. I understand that they are worried that they planning inspector will not call them to appear, now that in the technical consultation they have changed their mind (Castleford Tigers and Ben Bailey pushed for this to be designated as housing since the start of the LDF process) and that could be a problem. The document now has to go forward to the planning inspector showing WR as housing and that is unlikely to be changed, IMO, by the planning inspector without bloody good reasons for doing so... and no, funding a new stadium is not, in his eyes, a good enough reason I suspect!'" Sorry I_A but You are wrong. I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for information only to show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine). The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?

Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "Sorry to do this to you mate... but you are wrong! Site N101 - Castleford Tigers Ground is designated as providing 105 houses within the Site Specific Proposals Submission. You are looking in the wrong place now! Because this area falls within SPA N9 the housing sites within this area are no longer listed seperatley like the other hosuing sites within the LDF! [i"Alongside housing allocations, some special policy areas also contribute towards housing delivery and these are shown in the tables below. Special policy areas are capable of accommodating a range of different land uses and not just housing, but where areas within them will contribute towards housing delivery this information is included in the tables. "[/i If you don't believe me, the table is here - rlhttp://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/portal/spatial_policy/ssp_sub/ssp_sub/sspdpd_sub?pointId Sorry! Yes, true but also you forget that the LDF core strategy is in force so it is not just a simple matter of looking at the old UDP anymore. Plus this document is now 3 years in the making and just suddenly turning a blind eye to it would be foolish because Morrison's and Asda's planning lawyers would be all over this like a rash. Not insurmountable, especially in an SPA, but this is yet another reason that this will take time to reach a conclusion! I do think this is one of the reasons they want to get this moving sooner or later. I understand that they are worried that they planning inspector will not call them to appear, now that in the technical consultation they have changed their mind (Castleford Tigers and Ben Bailey pushed for this to be designated as housing since the start of the LDF process) and that could be a problem. The document now has to go forward to the planning inspector showing WR as housing and that is unlikely to be changed, IMO, by the planning inspector without bloody good reasons for doing so... and no, funding a new stadium is not, in his eyes, a good enough reason I suspect!'" Sorry I_A but You are wrong. I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for information only to show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine). The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you?

Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right Page 33 www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf

Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right Page 33 www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... olume2.pdf

What would Cas gain from a joint campaign? Cas clearly have the upper hand IMO. I don't think it's being overly cocky to suggest that, is it?

As things currently stand I can't see a single area where Wakey hold an advantage over Cas.


Going in to administration so close to decision time is what I believe will ultimately cost Wakefield their SL place. Glover can promise Wakey the world on a stick just like millionaire Steve O'Connor did in 2008 for Widnes but I'll be very surprised if they get the nod to remain unless a 15/16 team competition is announced.

I don't think it is cocky, but could be risky... you both don't know what each have written in their bids (well, you do know one bit of what was written in Wakefield's now... were you expecting that?). What do you actually lose,as fans, if you think your bid is far superior to theirs... nothing as far as I can see, it is a win win for you... isn't it?

What is wrong with saying, we should both stay?



You might be right, but you are also wearing amber and black tinted specs... as we all do, that is not a criticism. I understand that Wakefield's community programme is regarded as being one of the best in the whole game, so that might be one area... the rest, genuinely no idea? But that is the gamble that has to be taken!




The Widnes situation was different... they were not already in SL at the time, like you and Wakey were, on merit! At that time it was Widnes v Crusaders that was the battle... I can't seem to recall much in the way of calls to boot you or Wakey out! Kicking out a team, putting people out of work, taking away peoples jobs and livelihoods... bit bigger decision eh?

I don't think the clubs can do this themselves, but the fans is different!

How will you feel if you don't do something and it turns out, your bid was not as strong and you though and you do get kicked out?

How can the council plan for a housing development on the Cas ground if that doesn't release the capital needed for Cas to go to Glasshoughton?!?!?
It's a none starter.
Other retail and leisure developments would have to be built around a tatty sports stadium with the obvious parking problems on match days.