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

That document is a joke; typically for NIMBY's, their argument is flimsy, badly constructed and uses a carpet-bombing approach to try to raise as many objections as possible, however tenuous.

It will be very interesting what appears on the horizon when all of the dust has settled after the political war fare.

Barton Wilmore - their services will cost a few bob. I wonder who's paying?

To quote an old legal maxim:
If you're strong on the law, argue the law.
If you're strong on the facts, argue the facts.
If you're strong on neither, bang on the table.

Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. That's all I can hear.

Myself and Yorkcourt's barrister were having the same conversation just the other day... we have a good idea... but don't know for certain!