That looks like a very standard reply and I guess does not address the specifics you raised in your email/letter.

What a surprise!!!

The email response I recieved.

Thank you for your email. I'm sorry you didn't like our report; it certainly wasn't our intention to disappoint. But I can assure you we don't take sides in any story we cover; we always try to be impartial.

It's not the first time Look North has covered this story. We broadcast items about the proposed development in December 2009 and February 2010. On both occasions we reflected the boost it would give the local economy, the community and obviously the Wildcats and their supporters. This was the first time any objections to the plans have been mentioned by BBC Look North.

We did approach the developers, Yorkcourt Properties, for an interview. Unfortunately they were unable to provide someone. They did, however, provide information, which our reporter clearly included in her script when she said 'the developers claim it will boost the economy and bring more jobs to West Yorkshire... the idea is there will be more sports facilities for people in Wakefield and Wildcats fans believe the new stadium is vital'. Phil Townsend from Stadium Wakefield Action Group then provided a fans' perspective. We did omit some of what he had to say- just as we did with our other contributors; our report was only two minutes long and it really was impossible to justify any more time for the item on a day when there was such serious news in Bradford, for example..

We did, I accept, speak to a resident who objects to the plans; and also to an ecologist, who objects for different reasons. We also included the views of Leeds Council because their concerns are different, again. We did approach Wakefield Council for a comment, but as the planning authority, they felt it inappropriate at this stage.

Following our broadcast, the developers got in touch with us to say that, contrary to your view, they had no objections to what we broadcast. I'm also pleased to say we have a very good relationship with John Kear and his colleagues at the club. I sincerely hope that continues, and that the club and its supporters have a good end to the Superleague season.

Thank-you for taking the trouble to write; I do appreciate it.

Yours sincerely
Tim Smith

Editor, BBC Look North

Heres the Beebs reply to my complaint "Thanks for your e-mail regarding ‘Look North’. I understand that you felt that the report on proposals by Wakefield Trinity Wildcats to build a new stadium was bias. We reported on the issue accurately and fairly, and made it clear that many rugby fans are supporting it, but some people living nearby are unhappy. We also featured a quote in support on bbc.co.uk: “But Phil Townsend, chairman of Stadium Wakefield Action Group, said the issue of a new venue was "do or die" for the club. "The stadium is vital for providing sporting facilities for Wakefield," he said. "It will be home for the Wildcats but it is also a community stadium and will be available for use for everybody." A range of views and opinions were heard and it is Wakefield Council who will rule upon the matter and we made the point many times throughout that anyone with any views to express had until Friday to contact the council to contribute to their consultation. I am pleased to enclose information on the planning application. Since this has been taken from a non-BBC website, we can’t accept responsibility for the contents, but I hope it’s helpful to you: planning.wakefield.gov.uk/online ... CT8QQ04200 I would like to assure you that I have registered your complaint onto our audience log which is made available to senior management and production staff." So a comment from Phil on the internet site is supposed to be as fair as those included in the programme from objectors? This response and those received by others just confirm what a waste the licence fee is.

Heres the Beebs reply to my complaint "Thanks for your e-mail regarding ‘Look North’. I understand that you felt that the report on proposals by Wakefield Trinity Wildcats to build a new stadium was bias. We reported on the issue accurately and fairly, and made it clear that many rugby fans are supporting it, but some people living nearby are unhappy. We also featured a quote in support on bbc.co.uk: “But Phil Townsend, chairman of Stadium Wakefield Action Group, said the issue of a new venue was "do or die" for the club. "The stadium is vital for providing sporting facilities for Wakefield," he said. "It will be home for the Wildcats but it is also a community stadium and will be available for use for everybody." A range of views and opinions were heard and it is Wakefield Council who will rule upon the matter and we made the point many times throughout that anyone with any views to express had until Friday to contact the council to contribute to their consultation. I am pleased to enclose information on the planning application. Since this has been taken from a non-BBC website, we can’t accept responsibility for the contents, but I hope it’s helpful to you: planning.wakefield.gov.uk/online ... CT8QQ04200 I would like to assure you that I have registered your complaint onto our audience log which is made available to senior management and production staff." So a comment from Phil on the internet site is supposed to be as fair as those included in the programme from objectors? This response and those received by others just confirm what a waste the licence fee is.

here's mine for the Beeb

sent this back to them to see how they worm out of this one

If they can't answer points raised why bother at all.

Are these by any chance rare ducks of special scientific interest just waiting for a chance to live happily ever after on one of the new ponds at Newmarket?

And I'm getting worried about the rugby ball - where has he/she gone? Does he/she realise the game is up and has gone to a corner somewhere to lick their wounds. Or are they scared of armadillos and what they might know about them...

Won't that simply be too late for us? Applications for next round of SL licences have to be submitted by November this year, with the announcements on who is in/out in Spring 2011. How can we expect to have the stadium completely sorted by then? It looks like the [iAngry Residents [/idon't actually have to get the planning application knocked back - the delay due to the planning process may well spoil any chance of a new stadium being delivered in time to keep us in Super League. And if the stadium aspect of the planning application becomes unrequired, then how are the developers going to sell the entire deal to the council?

It would be too late and I imagine 1 of 2 things happening.

1: Trinity lose their license and cease to exist. The development still gets the go ahead but without the stadium and community facilities.

2: Trinity lose their license, the development gets the in ahead but the stadium is scaled down to reflect the league status of the club.

Of course the whole thing may not get approval but I don't think that will happen.

I may be way off the mark here, but I thought the stadium deal had sod all to do with the council and more to do with the canny person who sold the land to the developers in the first place. But I also thought one of the prerequisites for the sale was the development of a stadium. And if the council have to lay off a large number of their own employees with the planned public spending cuts, do you think they'll turn their noses up at a private development that aims to create about 1,000 new jobs in the area?

I would like to inform you of another group, Wakefield Against New Grounds Even Rugby Stadia. WANGERS will do anything to stop this new stadium from happening.

Thanks
Matt Horacio Jontyforth