What is corrupt about listening to residents' concerns? Who are you suggesting is corrupt - the planning officers or the elected councillors?

Looking at the Pictures of the "NEW" SS I just wish we had a similar Roof to what we have now...
If those Pictures are to be believed wouldn't a high roof such as that one lose all the sound coming from us?!

The Jamie Thackray Public bar

All except the drum.

Hard to tell how many or who exactly was corrupted, but let's not kid ourselves Leeds Rhinos were treated in a fair manner when you consider what was built a few hundred yards away in within the boundaries of Headingley sports ground. Taken in isolation, the decision to knock back the Rhinos South Stand redevelopment would appear to come from a strict Council Planning Dept that takes any development within close proximity of residential housing very seriously to the point of an extra two metres in height being a big no no. The new stand would have taken almost exactly the same footprint as the current stand, just slightly higher. Fair do's, two metres is two metres, even though it wouldn't block any sunlight from a single property, residential or otherwise.. But hold on, what's that we see looming over Kirkstall Lane and Cardigan Road, blocking any sunlight, or even daylight, from a large number of properties. Is the great green carbuncle anywhere near the same size as the old Winter Shed that stood there for so many years. The simple answer is no, something at least three times as big has been given granted permission, and it looks like a great big bogey looming over everything around. Now I'm no planning expert, but it appears to me that a certain application was given preferential treatment over the other. Who ever made those decisions knows the answer, but if they were deciding within the same planning framework you would have to say it is an absolute joke that the new cricket monstrosity was granted while the relatively low key South Stand redevelopment was knocked back over a couple of metres in height. What do you think Tigertot ? Tell me how you think one massive new building received permission, while by comparison, a rather small project was knocked back. I'm not naive enough to think certain people didn't have certain agendas when scrutinising these two applications.

The South Stand planning application wasn't turned down. It was approved despite Leeds breaking protocol and ethics by putting forward a scheme for public consultation and then sending a significantly different and larger scheme for planning approval.

Leeds just haven't built it yet.

Before the public consultation Leeds did negotiate with the council as to what was realistic - which is where they got the indication that anything much larger in dimensions than the current stand was going to to have difficulties. What was actually given planning permission was quite generous in those circumstances.

Unfortunately because of the way stadia legislation works, any replacement stand would have to be rather more capacious to maintain the existing level of capacity as more space per individual is required in newbuilds whereas there is a bit of grandfathering for existing stands.

There was a councillor leading the the protest of any kind of rebuild and I think he lost his seat anyway

I've absolutely no idea how the cricket/LMU stand progressed through planning & neither, it appears have you. I wasn't around here at the time of that application. I would guess that its primary use is educational & the then LMU were pumping a fortune into sport & that that went a long way to persuading councillors it should be viewed favourably. They have to consider what the ever changing government planning guidelines are for development or risk losing an expensive planning appeal if the application is turned down. Thinking back I seem to recall there was also the risk of Headingley losing its test status.
It is councillors who decide most planning applications, not planners, despite the former not having to have any formal training or qualifications in that field. As part of my job I work extensively with Leeds planners, I wouldn't want their job for a gold pig.

The position of the South Stand means that it can rarely, if ever reduce the amount of direct sunlight falling on the houses opposite. In any case I thought that there is no presumption of a right to light under current planning law.
I wonder if now would be a good time for the club to revisit the plans for the South Stand given the council's apparent support for the cricket side & YCCC's need to redevelop the North Stand before 2019.
I've always believed that a stand along the lines of the Carnegie stand with seats or corporate boxes together with TV/radio facilities on top with standing room below is the best option for the club.
Re naming the stands, I hope that both John Holmes & Lewis Jones will be honoured.

Right to Light is not my field, but you are probably right. I think recent legislation requires neighbours to register their right to light more immediately or make compensation far more available as an option to developers to pay.
I am reminded of the new stand at Bradford City. There were neighbours' objections to that, but it was approved. The scale of the new build in relation to the original & the adjacent terraced building is staggering.

Anyway whatever if they mean what they say about completed by 2019 they are going have to get a move on

Will the south stand be seating or a terrace? If they do build the new SS with a different style of roof to what we have now and make it all seating a lot of the atmosphere will be lost. Look at the DW stadium that's all seating and there is no atmosphere there hardly, although that might be down to them having fans.

The DW's main occupiers are Wigan Athletic though so their was no chance for them to have a standing stand. Look at a out and out RL ground like Warrington and they have standing in the 'new-ish' stadium so I'm sure they'd keep the South Stand as a standing stand.

The original plans had two tiers, the upper one had seating & hospitality boxes if I recollect rightly.
Those plans were rejected by the council for being too high.
The revised plans showed an all standing new stand.