Imaterial Wakefield council are intersted in creating jobs that cost nothing and tick the right boxes. The outcome of the enquiry will be purlely a government decision and not a Wakefield council decision.

WOW

Wow =Wakefield council owe Wakefield a future

I reckon I can let you know a shortened version of his reply - 'not a lot'!

I've just had a read of that 67 page document and they should have basically called it 'NIMBY' a case study, it's comical to say the least. I love the bit where they state that, Trinity don't need a stadium because Cas have one and apparently if we joined in with them, it would automatically be built.
The amount of far reaching statements they come out with is unreal, they're even still trying to make out that match days will cause problems for Pinderfields hospital A&E department, they don't seem to understand that match days aren't played during rush hour and the majority of the time on the weekends.

Anyone got a link

Try rlthisrl.

So pretty much they're against everything!

They're against cars, but own them
They're against public transport but admit they're under serviced.
They suggest 800 parking spaces aren't enough, but don't want car use?
They highlight, the fact that Arriva/Metro are more than happy to arrange match day shuttles for 13/365 days of the year thus reducing traffic issues.
They recognise the need for employment, but only if the unemployed are in a short walking distance to the site? Do all inhabitants of Newmarket Lane work on NM lane?

To be honest i'm quite happy with the document, because it highlights the fact that still after plenty of time to prepare and plan to object against the site they still haven't focused their objection towards several key issues and have rather broadened their objection to encompass everything. In doing so, this means their arguement when specifically analysed point by point is rather flimsy.

I would agree. The document picks on so many diverse issue, it doesn't really back one reason. I know that isn't enough but I think they'd have been better saying, 'there is one big reason why this doesn't work.....' rather than saying every alternative, some of which will be knocked down quite easily.

Other than it was very nice of them to let us have the information we need to counter their arguments in advance, not that we really needed 67 pages of it, then pretty much what TRB posted!

It is full of holes you could drive a bus through... and we intend to do just that!

That is a good summary... I quite like this, I might read this out to the planning inspector at my evidence session!

The employment thing is their attempt to pick up on a planning technicality!

Sites are assessed for 'public transport accessibility' on this really dumb flow chart system. Basically, if you don't have a current bus stop within 400 metres of the CENTRE of a new site, your site is considered to have a very poor public transport access. Firstly, if the site is not an urban site then all large sites score poorly. It is complete nonsense... and they know it! The extra buses will come when people start working on the site and therefore there is a need for extra buses... chicken and egg!

Newmarket scores poorly on this stupid system... but not quite a poorly as the Aire Valley, which needs a road before you can put a bus stop up and drive a bus anywhere near it!

Maybe someone should also mention to them on the quiet that, should the Newmarket development not get the go ahead, then it has apparently been discussed in high places that the site would go on the (now quite short) list of places that a certain necessary development that has recently been pulled from Walton and previously from Ossett could go. I'm sure that would please them.....

which is what?

Quote: fat faced fan "which is what?'" At a guess; www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... _1_3476221

Quote: fat faced fan "which is what?'" At a guess; www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... _1_3476221