You surprise me...



That is correct.

Given the stick I get from the adolescents on here (see above) then I could not resist saying... I told you so! I am back on a winning percentage!





In that case the planners will ask them to put them back I suspect or reject the REM. As the outline was granted on the basis of more spaces then simply putting them back effectively resolves the issue and assuming that Xscape did not object on this basis first time around (?) their objection is countered.

Oh wise one, thank you for clearing the situation up. The dwellers of Castleford can sleep soundly knowing that the fountain of all planning permission knowledge is here to translate to us. Praise the Lord

Mods - Do we really need this here on RL Fans... again? They have the whole of Casforum to assassinate my character if they wish!

Can we keep this like Bonzo please... sensible?

You would think the owners of Xscape would be chuffed to have thousands of potential customers in the area every 2 weeks?.

Money talks in this day and age,hope a comprimise can be sorted quickly

Better still, why dont you take your ball home and go and sit next to Ferguson and say nowt?

How about we all cut out the petty squabbling and keep the thread on topic? Failing that I'll just use the lock button on this and any newly created threads on the subject if people can't be civilised about it.

If you read the letter mate they are but the point (as I said on the VT thread linked above) is about dead-time and people not being able to park and use Xscape when the place is half empty for 2 hours + while people go over the bridge. Their car park runs at near capacity for the majority of the weekend already so they don't actual gain anything unless these extra visitors to the game can park somewhere and there is real potential that in actual fact they take more money on nights when a match is NOT on an lose money when there is because people take up space while being off-site for 2 hours blocking other people getting in. You hit the nail on the head - they are only potential customers but if you can't accommodate them, they remain just that - potential!

The planning issue is that they have reduced the number of spaces from the outline approval to current reserved matters. If they hadn't done that Xscape might still object but then it would be a little late to do so! As it is, theirs is a very valid objection that now needs to be dealt with or take the risk on the planners siding with the club/Waystone.

Having read the letter I can't disagree with any of the points made - Xscape car park does get very busy on the weekends and so its not as if supporters parking their cars there are doing so in a space that would otherwise remain empty.

I'm just disappointed Xscape have only raised their objections now. Then again, if Cas have altered the planned number of parking spaces included with the stadium from that detailed in the outline planning application they (Cas) have only got themselves to blame!

I wonder if we could offer some sort of compromise by increasing our number of parking spaces and offering them to Xscape/Junction 32 for use in their busy periods ie xmas, january sales etc etc

Castigers/Ramsdens reduce the number of spaces by 325 in this application.

Xscape have 400 overflow spaces that none of their customers use.

Xscape may have to pay for a lease and upkeep of these spaces as they do not own the land.

Castigers take over the lease on a ready made car park for 400 spaces.

Castigers save on the cost of constructing 400 spaces

Castigers and Xscape both Happy Bunnies.

Just a thought but I may be wrong

You missed getting Xscape out of a S106 and possible planning condition... but otherwise good and very possible theory!